BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Allhallows Staining Church Bill [ Lords]

Bill read a Second time and committed. .

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked-

NHS Staff (Assaults)

Michael Fabricant: How many assaults on NHS staff on duty were reported in 2009; and if he will make a statement.

Ann Keen: Between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2009, there were 54,758 reported physical assaults against NHS staff in England. That figure is for all reported assaults and includes any linked to NHS employment including those that occurred while staff were off duty.

Michael Fabricant: I think that the whole House would agree that 54,758 assaults are 54,758 too many. What training is given to NHS staff to help them to avoid those situations?

Ann Keen: Any violence against NHS staff is totally unacceptable. The NHS constitution pledges a safe working environment, free from violence, for staff. Historically, we worked in a culture in which we were not encouraged to report violence. We are pleased that our culture is now much more open, and that staff are now encouraged to report such incidents. Training is a matter for individual trusts, and training is given. That is important, but we also need to send a clear message to anyone who tries to assault our staff that we will seek to prosecute them. From April, we shall record the figures in such a way as to give the trusts access to them more quickly and more easily, so that we can monitor the trusts and assist in any training that is required.

Lindsay Hoyle: Of course, anything that can be done, and any way of improving the collecting of information, is important. The reality is, however, that it is totally unacceptable for the hard-working staff of the NHS to have to suffer attacks. What can we do to protect them, and what more can we put in place in the form of people and security measures? We should not tolerate this situation; we should be doing more about it. I look forward to my hon. Friend's answer.

Ann Keen: Absolutely; I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Each trust and primary care trust has responsibility as an employer for its employees, and different areas of work will require different measures. Security guards are employed in some areas, and police officers have a function in hospitals. We have also introduced new powers to remove from hospital premises anyone-including those who have accompanied patients-who is causing a nuisance or disturbance and diverting staff from carrying out their duties. This new offence could lead to a fine of up to £1,000. We want to give the strongest message that our NHS staff must be protected at all times.

Michael Penning: The whole House will agree that any assault on NHS staff is abhorrent, and that the full force of the law should come down on the perpetrators. The fact that 54,000-plus assaults on staff took place in 2008-09 is fundamentally wrong. However, the Minister's warm words about prosecution fall flat when we consider that only 1.3 per cent. of assaults on NHS staff result in any form of criminal sanctions. Why are so many people getting away with assaulting our NHS staff? Why is the full force of the law not coming down on them?

Ann Keen: The hon. Gentleman is right to show his concern, but it is not for us to prosecute such cases; it is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service. We do everything in our power to encourage such prosecutions to be brought, however-for example, we do everything we can to encourage evidence to be produced. We also want to prevent such assaults, and train people to prevent them.

Medicines (Parallel Exports)

Christopher Fraser: What steps he is taking to reduce parallel exports of medicines.

Mike O'Brien: In November, the Government and medicines supply chain stakeholders published joint guidance to manufacturers and wholesalers on their existing legal responsibilities. On 2 March, the Government hosted a summit at which we agreed a further package of actions to ensure that patients continue to get the medicines that they need.

Christopher Fraser: What estimate has been made of the amount of potential research and development money that is lost to British firms as a result of parallel trading?

Mike O'Brien: Research and development money is only part of the issue. The key issue is that patients are sometimes not getting the medicines that they need. That is what parallel exporting is all about; it is not so much about the research and development that takes place in a number of centres. When patients go to the chemist, they want to know that the medicines they need will be there.

Mark Simmonds: I acknowledge that this is a complex issue, and that it has been exacerbated by the weak pound and the Government's renegotiation of the prescription pricing regulation scheme. However, parallel exporting has resulted in a shortage of nearly 50 medicines in the UK, including those needed for the treatment of cancer and transplant patients. The issue first arose in 2008, and the number of export licences has grown exponentially since then. Why has it taken the Government so long to begin to address this serious issue, and why does the Minister not insist that patients must come first and introduce tighter controls on access to medicine export licences?

Mike O'Brien: It is certainly the case that we dealt with this issue during the course of last year and we also published the guidance, to which I have referred, in the same period. Furthermore, at the summit we held with stakeholders at the start of this month, a package of proposals was agreed, including a more explicit duty on manufacturers and wholesalers to provide medicine to NHS patients, target inspections by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority, tougher standards for licensing medical wholesalers and best practice guidance on how to deal with supply difficulties. We need to consult on some of those issues. Those consultations are already taking place; indeed, there are meetings going on today.

Maternity Services

Hazel Blears: What steps he is taking to ensure that maternity services provide a full range of high-quality birth choices for women.

Andy Burnham: Almost all NHS trusts are delivering the national guarantee for women to have a choice about place of birth as set out in "Maternity Matters". This supports our aim to give all mothers easy access to supportive, high-quality maternity services, designed around their individual needs, their families and those of their baby.

Hazel Blears: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will know from his recent visit to Salford that mums such as Lisa Kean and fabulous midwives such as Heather Rawlinson and Sarah Davies have been campaigning with me to make sure that there is a midwife-led maternity unit in Salford, so that the next generation of Salfordians can continue to be born in the city. Will my right hon. Friend give this unit his full support so that we have a real facility rather than the smoke and mirrors of "maternity networks", whatever they might be, which are currently on offer from the Opposition?

Andy Burnham: I spent a very enjoyable and interesting afternoon with a group of Salford mums recently and I would recommend it to anyone, as I learned a great deal. I know that they are giving their support to the formidable campaign that my right hon. Friend has led to establish a midwife-led unit in Salford. I know that NHS Salford has recently given support in principle for that scheme, but it will consider the full business case later this year.

Nicholas Winterton: I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of the Royal College of Midwives.

Patrick Cormack: Deliver. Deliver.

Nicholas Winterton: I am going to deliver.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that a safe, successful and enjoyable birth is what every woman craves? Does he further accept that midwives are absolutely critical to the care given to a pregnant woman, not just before pregnancy, but during delivery and post-natally? Will he ensure that there are sufficient midwives to provide that quality of service?

Andy Burnham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and I pay tribute to him in his honorary role with the Royal College of Midwives. I agree wholeheartedly with the way in which he has presented his question. It is crucial to give mothers the best possible support during childbirth. Eighty-nine per cent. of women say that the care they receive during pregnancy and childbirth is good quality, but there is more to do to ensure that that 89 per cent. becomes higher. We are recruiting more midwives. We have had 4,000 more since 1997; we need to recruit more to ensure that this one-to-one support is there. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he has done.

David Crausby: The £20 million investment available for the new super-maternity centre in the Royal Bolton hospital is very welcome indeed, but is it not threatened by those who support proposals to abandon the Making it Better scheme that covers Greater Manchester?

Andy Burnham: My constituents will also benefit from that investment to the Bolton Royal, which is much welcomed. I am disappointed that candidates are going around Greater Manchester undermining the clinically-led process that we went through with Making it Better. We took difficult decisions because we wanted to improve the safety of services for mothers and children. These candidates cannot have it both ways: they say that they will save maternity units elsewhere in Greater Manchester, yet by attacking the scheme, they undermine the investment going into my hon. Friend's constituency.

Norman Lamb: The Government have made repeated commitments about choice for all women in childbirth. Jenny and Hadleigh Farrer of Norwich, however, who specifically wanted a home birth were told when Jenny went into labour that no midwives were available between 10 pm and 8 am the following morning. She gave birth at home without a midwife in attendance. Does not this case and many others expose the sad reality, confirmed by the Royal College of Midwives, that there are not enough midwives to deliver either a safe birth or choice for women in childbirth?

Andy Burnham: I am not aware of the precise details of the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, but if he will write to me I shall be happy to look into it. I can tell him that 99 per cent. of primary care trusts offer home birth as a core part of their offer to mothers-to-be, although the arrangements may vary according to the circumstances obtaining on any particular day and the levels of clinical risk that may be involved in any pregnancy. I want to go even further and enshrine in the NHS constitution a guarantee that all mothers-to-be can give birth in a place of their choosing.

Musculoskeletal Diseases

Graham Stringer: If he will appoint a national clinical director for musculoskeletal diseases.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the interest that he has taken in this important subject. I can tell him that I am minded to appoint a national clinical director, but I am seeking the advice of the National Quality Board, which is currently focusing on the subject of musculoskeletal diseases.

Graham Stringer: I am delighted by my right hon. Friend's positive response, but will he tell us how quickly he expects to receive that advice, and what the schedule will be for the appointment of a clinical director?

Andy Burnham: It may be difficult to do in a matter of days, but I wanted to give my hon. Friend a clear commitment. I pay tribute to the work that he has done in raising awareness of the cost to our economy of failure to provide early treatment and diagnosis of musculoskeletal problems, particularly rheumatoid arthritis. Those who suffer from that condition take an average of 40 days' sick leave a year.
	I appreciate my hon. Friend's push to ensure that the NHS does a better job in focusing on such conditions. As I have said, I am minded to appoint a clinical director, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the campaign that he has led.

David Tredinnick: The Secretary of State will be aware that some musculoskeletal conditions can be relieved through the use of herbal medicine and acupuncture. Is he aware that Hydes herbal clinic in Leicester has written to me again, wondering why the Government have not responded to the consultation on the statutory regulation of herbal medicine? Will they do so next week, in the last gasp of their tenure?

Andy Burnham: It is fitting that the hon. Gentleman should make us think about complementary therapies during our last session of health questions. I believe that he was once described as the hon. Member for Holland and Barrett, but his interests are far broader than that: he really represents the whole field of complementary and alternative therapies. I should like to say more about the matter that he has raised before the end of the current Parliament.

Anne Begg: I am particularly delighted to hear the news that there is to be a clinical director-does that mean that he will be a bones tsar?-because I am aware of the cost to the economy of people who are out of work because of musculoskeletal problems. The number of people receiving incapacity benefit and the new employment support allowance has proved resistant to reduction simply because there is not enough focus on returning people with such problems to work and getting them moving.

Andy Burnham: My hon. Friend is right. That is why we asked Dame Carol Black to conduct a review. She published "Working for a healthier tomorrow", which proposed initiatives such as the "fit note" to help us to encourage people to return to work as soon as possible. Dame Carol's work also led to our fit for work service pilots.
	This is a crucial issue for the country. There are 26,000 new cases of rheumatoid arthritis every year, and 690,000 people in the United Kingdom are believed to be living with the condition. If it is not detected and treated early, the damage to the joints can lead to severe disability and restrict people's ability to work in the long term. My hon. Friend is right to say that we should focus on the issue, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer). That is why I am minded to appoint a national clinical director.

Mid Essex Hospital Trust

Simon Burns: How many times patients have waited longer than 18 weeks for the start of treatment in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area in the last 18 months; and how many patients were so affected.

Mike O'Brien: Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust has met the 18 weeks standard in every month since August 2008. The standard allows patients to choose to wait longer, or alternatively to wait longer when that is clinically appropriate. It is reported that 5,649 patients at the trust have waited more than 18 weeks.

Simon Burns: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I would be grateful if he would check it with those who briefed him, because I think he will find that the situation is not 100 per cent. as he has just said; I have reason to believe there have been breaches of the 18-week waiting time for those who wanted to be treated within that period but could not be. Will the Minister look into that and write to me, making a correction if necessary?

Mike O'Brien: I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman, but may I just say to him that there are issues in relation to some orthopaedic patients and, I think, three patients in urology and one in neurosurgery, but they are quite complex issues involving staffing levels? Nothing I have said to him contradicts that, but if he wishes me to write to him, I will be very happy to do so.

End-of-life Care Strategy

David Amess: What plans he has to audit spending on the end-of-life care strategy.

Phil Hope: We attach great importance to improving end-of-life care. We know that most people would prefer to be cared for in their own homes, which is why in the next Parliament we will bring forward proposals on a right for people to choose to die at home if they wish. In the end-of-life care strategy, we made a commitment to monitor the £286 million of new money we were making available for implementation over 2009-10 and 2010-11. We have asked strategic health authorities and primary care trusts to report by 21 May this year on how they have invested the new money for 2009-10.

David Amess: As the Minister may know, during this Parliament I was involved in a meeting on hospice funding with the Prime Minister, during which he praised the hospice movement. Everyone knows that hospices depend on charitable giving and volunteers. In light of that, have the Government made any assessment of the impact of the recession on the hospice network?

Phil Hope: As the hon. Gentleman rightly suggests, the hospice movement plays a vital role. Many Members have in our constituencies hospices that do an excellent job. That is why the £286 million of additional funding to which I have just referred includes £40 million that is being made available to hospices through a capital fund in 2010-11. I will be making announcements on that soon.

Mark Todd: The all-party group on motor neurone disease conducted an inquiry into end-of-life care that revealed that many primary care trusts have either not been fully utilising the money set aside or have not used it at all for this purpose and have instead taken it entirely for other purposes. Is that also the early evidence from the Minister's inquiries?

Phil Hope: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has been a long-standing champion in the House for people with motor neurone disease. We are monitoring primary care trusts' expenditure of the £286 million for the reason he suggested. The results of that analysis will be shared with the Public Accounts Committee, included in the end-of-life care strategy second annual report, and published on the Department's website. We are making good progress, but we need to make sure that work is happening on the ground.

Stephen O'Brien: I rise to ask a question in light of the Government's admission in the past few weeks that, distressingly, only 30 per cent. of the money earmarked for end-of-life care users has reached patients under the Government's end-of-life care strategy, and that, similarly, dementia sufferers have received only a third of the funding pledged under the Government's dementia strategy-let alone the fact that only one quarter of funding under the carers strategy has been received by those for whom it was intended. On behalf of those who have not received their respite breaks, or, indeed, the dignity they deserve, I ask the Minister when he intends to honour his promise not just to have the money properly audited and reported on, but to make sure it is wrung out of the wasteful bureaucracy and put to front-line use, as promised.

Phil Hope: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking carefully at how primary care trusts and strategic health authorities are spending money at the local level on a variety of important resources and support for patients and carers. I might add that we hope no one will have to monitor what impact the £6 billion a year of cuts the Conservative party announced yesterday would have on local care services throughout the country.

Rob Marris: The excellent Compton hospice is headquartered in my constituency and does a fantastic job. One of the things it does is train workers in palliative care. Will my hon. Friend tell me what financial support is available from the Government-it certainly should be-to help with the training of workers who will be doing palliative care?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important part of how we raise the quality of end-of-life care for people right across the country. Training is one particular issue, but I should add that by working through the Dying Matters coalition, we want to raise public awareness of issues associated with death, dying and bereavement. We not only need the professional training to be right, but need to address the taboo that too often exists in this country about discussing these matters, so that people are encouraged to think about, and plan and prepare for, this period in their life or in the life of a loved one in their family.

Carers Strategy

Angela Watkinson: What plans he has to audit spending on the carers strategy.

Andy Burnham: Each Department that supports the cross-government carers strategy is responsible for auditing its contribution. My Department's programmes are subject to independent evaluation. We have asked strategic health authorities to identify where primary care trusts have agreed with their local authorities to prioritise support for carers.

Angela Watkinson: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. He will know that some young carers fall behind in their studies because of a lack of awareness of their circumstances on the part of school staff. What guidance is given to schools to ensure that they are aware of what is happening and can help those young carers to balance their caring responsibilities with their personal development and education?

Andy Burnham: The hon. Lady raises an issue about which I care greatly. Some young people in our communities carry an incredible burden whereby they care for a family member and often sacrifice a great deal of their own life chances in doing so. Part of the problem is that the authorities often do not know that they are performing those caring responsibilities. We all have a duty to work harder to identify who those young people are and give them extra support, so that they do not miss out in later life as a result of performing a crucial function in caring for a loved one at a young age.

William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State accept that many carers feel undervalued in the work that they do? How does he see that being radically changed? Will he assure us that family carers do not lose any benefits that they should normally receive?

Andy Burnham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that people feel undervalued. It is right to say that carers often face a battle to get support and that that can be very wearying, particularly at a difficult emotional time for their family. That is why we have published today-he did call for radical change-a White Paper that proposes a fundamental reform of social care in England by establishing a national care service, which will be free at the point of use and operate according to need and on NHS principles. It will also give everybody the ability to get peace of mind in later life and to protect what they have worked for. We have also said that the essential characteristics of attendance allowance and disability living allowance will be preserved in any new system.

Expenditure Changes

Paul Rowen: What mechanism he plans to use to determine changes to expenditure on health services in the next four years.

Mike O'Brien: Overall primary care trust funding rose by 5.5 per cent. in this financial year and it will rise by 5.5 per cent. in the financial year 2010-11. Under Labour, these rises of 11.3 per cent. overall will be locked in for two further years up to 2013. In addition, the NHS is looking to make savings of £15 billion to £20 billion, which will be reinvested in NHS budgets.

Paul Rowen: I am sure that the Minister is aware of a leaked letter sent by the chief executive of the North West strategic health authority to PCTs calling on them to prepare cuts of 10 per cent. across the board and 15 per cent. in operational services. Such cuts include the shutting of Rochdale's accident and emergency department from 12 o'clock at night. Will the Minister admit, and stop trying to fool people about the fact, that the Government are planning real cuts after the election?

Mike O'Brien: Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale PCT will receive £358 million and £378 million in this financial year and next, which is an increase over the two-year period of £38.4 million, or 11.3 per cent. That is what we are planning for the hon. Gentleman's area. I should tell him that, contrary to what his website says, there are no "secret plans" to close his accident and emergency department overnight. There are concerns about understaffing in A and E and the board will examine how to address that in due course, but no decision has been made about closing the A and E department overnight.

Ian Cawsey: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend has not been looking at my website. When he reviews expenditure for the next two years, will he consider the impact on other departmental budgets? I have recently been dealing with a difficult and complex mental health case of a constituent. It involved a significant cost to the taxpayer, arising mainly through the police and the Prison Service, from which my constituent received no care or treatment to meet his needs. Can we ensure that as we examine our health service expenditure for the next four years, the mental health needs of our society are given a greater priority?

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure, in accordance with the Bradley report, that mental health issues are given a very high priority. We heard questions earlier about assaults on staff and relevant matters; mental health issues might be a factor in such cases. The NHS and other public services must, increasingly, address that area.

Andrew Lansley: The Conservatives are committed to a real-terms increase in the NHS budget each year in the next Parliament. Is that a commitment that the Minister can match?

Mike O'Brien: As I have already indicated, as far as we are concerned there will be an 11.3 per cent. increase this year and next year, and we are locking that increase in for the NHS for a further two years. Overall, for the next three years, we are going to see an increase not only on current budgets, but again next year.

Andrew Lansley: The House will note that the Minister has merely said what Ministers have said before-there will be flat, real-terms funding in 2011-12 and 2012-13-so he cannot match the commitment that I have made. How can he reconcile his answer with the plans of strategic health authorities across the country which include cuts of 10 per cent. or more in staffing in hospitals?

Mike O'Brien: As far as we are concerned, we are guaranteeing primary care trust budgets-that is what we are talking about: front-line services-in real terms. We are going to see an increase in those budgets, and we have already seen substantial increases in staffing. Everyone out there who is watching these proceedings and considering how to vote at the next election will remember that the Conservatives left the NHS on its knees. After we came into office in 1997, we got it up off its knees. It is now good and we can make it great. The hon. Gentleman could never do that.

Andrew Lansley: For all that bluster, the right hon. and learned Gentleman still cannot match the commitment we have made to real-terms increases for each year of the next Parliament-and, indeed, for the whole NHS budget. What about capital budgets? In the operating framework that was sent out to the NHS, the Labour Government have told it to expect a 50 per cent. reduction in capital expenditure over the course of the next spending review. How can he and his Secretary of State go around making promises of capital expenditure, as he did at Liverpool's Broadgreen hospital yesterday, given that Labour is committed to halving the capital budget for the NHS, while we are not?

Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman voted against the Wanless report and did not want national insurance to be increased for the NHS, and the Conservatives did not provide any of the extra funding that we have put into the health service in the past decade. Does anyone seriously think that they can be trusted with the NHS? I suspect that most members of the public do not. We will be able to test that in due course at the election. If people are asked who they can trust with the NHS, they have only to look at the Conservative record and then at ours to know that only Labour can be trusted with it.

Paddy Tipping: Despite record increases in funding, all nine PCTs operating in the east midlands do not reach the Government's own funding target. Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that part of the issue is fast population growth in the east midlands? Is not the solution to ensure that new population figures are fed into the funding formula as quickly as possible?

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is quite right. We need to ensure that the funding formula properly and accurately reflects issues related to population change, which can be significant in particular areas. We need to work through some of those issues, taking a great deal of care, with the other Departments that are affected by this issue.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at the report of the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families on children's centres, which was published yesterday, when he is thinking about expenditure over the next four years? Will he consider the criticism that the health sector is often the weaker partner with the Department for Children, Schools and Families? Can we see a greater commitment in both resources and commitment to the children's centres, which are doing a wonderful job of cutting down the silos that we see too often in health and education in the early years?

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is quite right. Children's centres are absolutely crucial in breaking down barriers and improving children's health and well-being. That is why the Government will ensure that funding for children's centres is given due priority-unlike the Opposition, who we know plan to cut funding for children's centres.

Administrative Tasks (Nurses)

Oliver Heald: What estimate he has made of the proportion of their working hours NHS nurses are required to spend on administrative tasks.

Ann Keen: NHS trusts are responsible for planning the activities of their nursing work force to meet the needs of their patients. It is not possible to collect centrally information on the proportion of working hours that NHS nurses are required to spend on administrative tasks.

Oliver Heald: Two years ago, the Royal College of Nursing carried out research into this and found that front-line nurses were spending 1.6 million hours a week on non-necessary paperwork. We are two years on from that, so is the Minister able to give any information about whether any progress has been made? For nurses to spend a day a week on average on non-essential paperwork is clearly unsatisfactory. We do not want them pen pushing; we want them helping patients.

Ann Keen: I think that we would all agree, but keeping accurate records is a nurse's essential responsibility under the code of the Nursing and Midwifery Council, the body that regulates nurses. We acknowledge the RCN's report, and that is why more than £50 million has been put into the health service to support the "Releasing Time to Care" programme, in which more than 80 per cent. of primary care trusts are now involved. It is exceptionally important that accurate records and assessments are made of patients and that all communication is recorded but, in my opinion and that of many nurses, that has improved greatly.

Trained First-aiders

Bob Russell: If he will undertake research into the proportion of people attending hospital accident and emergency departments whose treatment could be delivered effectively by a trained first-aider.

Gillian Merron: The Department has no plans to do so. First aid is normally given to sustain a patient in an emergency. It is not, of course, a substitute for effective treatment by a health professional.

Bob Russell: I had hoped for a better answer. May I suggest to the Minister that there is a general acceptance that many people go to accident and emergency departments who should not be there? If society had more trained first-aiders-as my superb ten-minute Bill of 19 November 2003 proposed-there would be less pressure on the NHS budget and on our A and E departments.

Gillian Merron: I am, of course, disappointed to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he, like me, would pay tribute to organisations such as the Red Cross and the St. Johns Ambulance service, of which I used to be a member, and to the many first-aiders up and down the country who give their time to provide on-the-spot initial care. However, first aid is not a treatment, as it can involve anything from putting a plaster on to keeping a patient alive until appropriate medical care is given. There is a range of possibilities for people who need treatment: as well as going to A and E, they can consult NHS Direct or visit the many new walk-in centres that the Government have set up. They can also use the extra services provided by pharmacies and out-of-hours doctors, and we are piloting a three-digit number for the future.

Linda Gilroy: A and E services are often put under great pressure by peaks in drinking, particularly binge drinking at the weekend. Will my hon. Friend look at how the Plymouth PCT and Derriford hospital have brought a service into the city service to address that issue? The service uses paramedics and others to treat people in situ, thus relieving pressure at the main service point in Derriford hospital.

Gillian Merron: I would of course be very happy to look at that service, and I congratulate the local health care services in my hon. Friend's constituency on showing such initiative. What they are doing is exactly what the NHS is about-taking the right services to the right people at the right time.

Cancer Survival Statistics

John Baron: What consideration he has given to extending the range of cancers for which his Department publishes one-year survival rates; and if he will make a statement.

Andy Burnham: The second annual report on the cancer reform strategy sets out one-year survival information for breast, lung and bowel cancer by primary care trust. Where it is statistically reliable to do so, we will include additional cancers in the third annual report on the cancer reform strategy.

John Baron: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but given that the all-party group report on cancer inequalities found a groundswell of support for the introduction of a one-year survival indicator for all cancer patients to ensure that we move away from input-based targets to measuring how effective the NHS is in treating cancer, will he give that consideration further review, and do it with renewed vigour? Many believe that that would help to improve early diagnosis.

Andy Burnham: May I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the important leadership role that he has played on those matters in this Parliament as a distinguished chair of the all-party group on cancer? I want the NHS to focus on the early diagnosis of cancer-I agree with him about that-and one-year survival figures will help to get the focus that we need, published for as many cancers as possible and by PCT. Where I must take issue with him is on his comment about input-based targets, or process targets, as Conservative Members often call them.
	When it comes to cancer, process equals time, and time matters. That is why Labour will enshrine in the NHS constitution the two-week guarantee so that people can see a cancer specialist, and why we are making a flagship pledge to deliver cancer test results within one week in the next Parliament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will persuade his Front Benchers to back those commitments.

Confidential Settlements

David Davies: How much the NHS spent on confidential settlements with members of NHS staff in the last three years.

Gillian Merron: It is not possible to separate out confidential severance payments within the NHS account. However, NHS expenditure in England, excluding foundation trusts, in the relevant category-ex gratia payments, other-was £4 million in 2006-07, £8.2 million in 2007-08 and £5.4 million in 2008-09.

David Davies: I thank the Minister for that helpful answer. I have recently been dealing with the case of a Dr. Lucy Dawson in my constituency, who was offered a confidentiality payment to keep quiet about a complicated matter. That worries me. Does it worry the Minister that, apparently, millions of pounds are being handed over to people simply to persuade them to keep their mouths shut when they see wrongdoing in the NHS? Will she commit to doing something about it?

Gillian Merron: That is not a culture in the NHS that I recognise. It is important to say that those payments relate to all staff groups-for example, a termination payment made out of compassion, perhaps to a seriously ill nurse, could be included in the figures. Another example would be where a payment represents best value for money-for example, if legal advice suggests that a case would be lost at an employment tribunal. Any proposed payment is not permitted to reward failure, dishonesty or inappropriate behaviour. Indeed, such a payment would not be approved. It is worth saying that the Audit Commission also acknowledged extremely rigorous processes that we have in the NHS for approving such payments.

Paediatric Cardiac Surgery

Sandra Gidley: What progress has been made on the national review of paediatric cardiac surgery; and if he will make a statement.

Ann Keen: The review of paediatric cardiac surgery is making good progress. Centres offering those services will shortly be asked to submit their proposals for meeting the requirements to be a surgical centre in the future.

Sandra Gidley: There are concerns that the national specialised commissioning group has already decided to reduce the number of units to five and that certain arbitrary assumptions mean that the slightly smaller units will be at risk of closure. Southampton general hospital is internationally respected for its work in this field, so will the Minister assure me that safety outcomes and quality will be the main criteria used in making the decision, not merely the number of procedures a year?

Ann Keen: The criteria were defined to secure safe and sustainable paediatric cardiac surgery services. Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust's outcomes show that it is consistently either at the top or very near the top of all performance tables.

Community Health Services (Worcestershire)

Peter Luff: What assessment he has made of the likely effects on patients and staff of the reorganisation of community health services in Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement.

Gillian Merron: This is a matter for the local NHS, which is proposing changes to improve the quality of services to patients. That will be thoroughly tested against national criteria.

Peter Luff: I think that the Government are probably right to insist on the purchaser-provider split, but does the Minister understand that the timetable the Government are insisting on for the reorganisation of community services in Worcestershire could lead to the wrong decisions being taken about the future of those services, contrary to the interests of patients and staff, and probably to the need for a further reorganisation, which would be damaging and disruptive to the organisation, all too quickly?

Gillian Merron: I spoke to the chief executive of Worcestershire PCT just this morning, and the need for improving services has been worked on since January 2009. The Department's deadline for achieving substantial implementation is April next year. The local NHS does not see this as a forced or a hastened change, and it has worked closely with staff, patients and others to improve services. What I believe would prove disruptive and disconcerting for staff and patients is delaying this improvement in services.

National Dementia Strategy

Richard Ottaway: What mechanism will be used to audit spending on the national dementia strategy.

Phil Hope: Dementia is a national priority and we are already spending over £8 billion a year on dementia in health and social care. The mechanism for the audit of the first ever national dementia strategy, which I published last year, is under development. We will consider how money is spent as a whole in health and social care for people with dementia, and that will form part of a wider review of dementia services.

Richard Ottaway: The strategy contains an outline of a proposal that employers should look for signs of dementia among employees. In the event that that happens, will he assure me that there will be training for employers in that process, and safeguards against discrimination against older employees?

Phil Hope: Yes, employers will certainly not be able to discriminate against older people, but it is important that we have raised general public awareness of dementia. For too long, dementia has been ignored or not recognised, and people therefore do not come forward for diagnosis by their GP or specialist memory clinic. As a result, they do not get a diagnosis for two or even, on average, three years, when the dementia has progressed. That means that we do not intervene early enough, and that means that we do not help people live with dementia well enough or hold back the progression of the disease. I hope that the wider public, as well as professionals in the health and social care system, will be able to identify early signs and refer people to appropriate specialists, and so ensure that people get the early intervention that they need.

David Drew: Will my hon. Friend ensure that as part of the audit we look at the cost and value of day centres? Too often nowadays it appears that local authorities, in particular, are trying to run down day centre services when those are often the only means by which people with dementia can get out of their homes. That is surely a retrograde step.

Phil Hope: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. One of the directions of travel that we wish to pursue is the idea that individuals might have a personal budget so that they can take more control over the care that is provided to them. Carers and the person with dementia will then be able to use their resources to ensure that they have the services that they need. We wish to ensure that services for people with dementia, possibly through peer support and other aspects of effective dementia care that we are demonstrating in this the first year of the strategy, are made available more widely throughout the country.

Jeremy Wright: Has the Minister had the opportunity to look at the latest report of the all-party group on dementia on what has happened to money allocated for the implementation of the national dementia strategy? If so, does he share my concern that very few of the PCTs that were asked could tell us what they had done with their share of the £60 million allocated for the first year of the strategy, or at least explain how what they had done with it related specifically to dementia? Can we do better for next year?

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman is chair of the all-party parliamentary group, which has done sterling work under his leadership during the past year to raise the profile of the needs of people with dementia and the need to provide better services for them. I congratulate him and his colleagues from all parties. The audit that I described earlier is designed to track progress in implementation of the strategy's objectives. We will be looking at a whole range of factors, such as the number of dementia leads in hospitals, which is a key part of the strategy, the number of established memory services, and the use of anti-psychotic drugs, another issue that he and I share a concern about and on which we wish to see rapid progress.

Topical Questions

Peter Luff: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Andy Burnham: The Government have today published a White Paper on the reform of social care in England. It proposes a national care service providing quality care and support for all adults in England free for people when they need it. It represents one of the biggest changes to the welfare state since the creation of the NHS. It sets out three stages of reform. First, the Personal Care at Home Bill helps the most vulnerable, enabling us to provide free personal care in their own homes for those with the highest needs. In the second stage, we will end the local lottery in care and establish national standards and entitlements. From 2014, care will be provided free to anyone staying in residential care for more than two years. At the start of the next Parliament, we will establish a commission to help reach consensus on the fairest and most sustainable way for people to contribute to the new system. As people live longer, we need to act to give them peace of mind and the ability to protect what they have worked for. Reform will work only if those benefits are secured for everybody.

Peter Luff: That sounded a bit like a statement to me.
	The Government may be aware of the threat to the acquired brain injury education service in Evesham, which helps the rehabilitation of stroke victims, in particular, and other brain injury victims. The threat has been caused by the changing priorities of the Learning and Skills Council in relation to adult education. Will the relevant Minister talk to the Further Education Minister to satisfy themselves that the unit is either truly just an education service or actually, as it used to be, co-funded by the Department for Health and the education Department?

Gillian Merron: I am advised that Worcestershire primary care trust is looking at NHS-funded services for people with acquired brain injuries, and it is the PCT's responsibility to commission services to meet the needs of the population. The trust has had an increase over two years of some £83.8 million and given a public commitment to ensure that the services that the acquired brain injury unit provides will be considered as part of the review. I certainly take the point that educational opportunities are an important part of the rehabilitation process.

Hazel Blears: Last Friday in Salford we opened the Humphrey Booth resource centre, which is a national demonstration project for those with dementia and Alzheimer's. It is an uplifting and inspiring place, so in developing the national care service will my hon. Friend ensure that such services are absolutely driven and shaped by users and carers? That is how we will secure services that really meet the needs of people with complex conditions such as Alzheimer's and dementia.

Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend is right to applaud the work of agencies such as those in her constituency. There are many others like that throughout the country, and our job in creating a national care service is to ensure that we design and develop services with not only users but carers at the very heart of how we respond to people's needs. The new national care service will be free for people when they need it, and we will support families, carers and communities as a basic principle of the way in which a new national care service delivers help for people throughout the country.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot to get through in topical questions, so the exchanges need to be very short and sharp.

Andrew Lansley: Why did the Secretary of State not make an oral statement? Will he now rule out a death tax to pay for the Government's national care service-yes or no?

Andy Burnham: We are debating the Personal Care at Home Bill later today, on a crowded parliamentary day, and we will have the opportunity to debate it as the first stage in our three-stage reform plan to fund social care. We will propose for social care a system that is similar to the rest of the welfare state-organised on a population basis, whereby everyone makes a contribution and everyone has a choice about how they make that contribution. We will establish a commission to advise the Government on those payment options, and the commission will be able to consider all options.

Doug Naysmith: I know that the Secretary of State is aware that there are two separate electronic surveillance systems for tuberculosis in England: one for London, one for the rest of the country. Does he agree that it would be more sensible to have one system for the whole country, enabling more effective control and treatment of that troublingly persistent disease, and, perhaps, a national treatment plan, as in many other countries?

Gillian Merron: I agree, and a new national system will be up and running early next year.

Norman Lamb: The Princess Royal Trust for Carers and Crossroads Care have revealed that for the next financial year PCTs have allocated to carers only 26 per cent. of the £100 million intended for respite care. Is not the Government's promise of respite care, followed by a total failure to deliver that care, tantamount to a fraud on some very vulnerable people? Surely it is now time to give a guaranteed right to a week's break for the 1 million carers who work the longest hours.

Andy Burnham: This Government recognised the need to support carers better when we came into office in 1997. Before then, the recognition of, and support for, carers was absolutely pitiful. Ever since then, the Government have invested £1.7 billion through the carer's grant to support carers, and locally people can allocate that funding flexibly. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we allocated further spending to PCTs so that they could provide respite care for carers. The Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope) has asked strategic health authorities to identify the level at which PCTs use that funding, so that we can take further action where sufficient priority is not being given to spending resources on respite care for carers.

Lynne Jones: According to the Government's excellent carers strategy, the provision of accurate and timely information is vital for carers, yet according to Rethink, the mental health charity, 33 per cent. of mental health carers do not receive basic information such as the diagnosis of the person they are caring for, and only 20 per cent. of trusts have information-sharing policies. What action will the Government take to remedy this deficiency?

Phil Hope: I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen and active interest in issues surrounding support for mental health service users and has campaigned on these issues for many years. I would like to make it clear that we do believe that service users should be fully informed about and engaged with arrangements for their own care. That is why the Department issued revised care programme approach guidelines as recently as 2008. Under those guidelines, each mental health service user should have, wherever possible, an opportunity to be actively involved in agreeing their treatment plans with their care co-ordinator. That would allow patients some say in determining what information is then made available about their condition to other parties, including carers and family members.

Mr. Speaker: These exchanges are taking too long: I want to get lots more colleagues in.

James Duddridge: Southend primary care trust relatively recently merged into South East Essex primary care trust, and there are now discussions-I think abortive-about merging into Mid Essex primary care trust. If this does go ahead in order to make efficiency gains, how will we ensure accountability between local government and larger NHS trusts?

Mike O'Brien: We need to ensure that PCTs and trusts are accountable to local people-that is the whole basis on which we have introduced the system of decentralisation in the NHS. Improving the quality of that accountability is therefore crucial. If we have learned anything from the Mid Staffordshire debacle, it is that trusts need to be in contact with local people.

Kevin Barron: May I welcome the Government's announcement on setting up a national care commission to look into fair funding of social care in this country? Will one of the remits of the commission be to reach a consensus, as recommended by the Health Committee's report on social care published on 12 March?

Phil Hope: We are delighted that we have the White Paper, "Building the National Care Service", which will be a landmark in this country's development of services for people in need of care and support, adults with disabilities, and older people. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Select Committee's report which was a helpful contribution to the debate. I am pleased to say that the national care commission will look at how we can find a fair way to give people a choice about making their contribution to ensuring that, in future, care will be free when people need it.

Peter Bone: I have been campaigning on behalf of Zach, a little boy in my constituency who has a rare, and very nasty, form of cancer. Life-saving treatment is available in other parts of the world, but not available here. However, thanks to the efforts of the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), who has cut through red tape, that treatment is now available. Does the hon. Lady know how much Zach's parents appreciate that?

Ann Keen: This is teamwork. We have worked together with Great Ormond Street hospital, the researchers, and the hon. Gentleman, and when we work together in this House, we get results. We all wish Zach, and his mum and dad, the very best.

Tony Lloyd: Do my hon. Friends recognise that in a constituency such as mine, the advent of a national care service will be greeted with enormous enthusiasm? However, do they understand the fears that if this were done on the basis of a voluntary insurance principle, it would exclude the poorest people and it would not be a national care service?

Andy Burnham: The reform of social care will work only if the peace of mind and the ability to protect savings and homes is available to everybody, whatever their income. The problem with the voluntary system of insurance proposed by the Conservatives is that as take-up of voluntary schemes is generally low, the cost is very high, so it would be out of the reach of my hon. Friend's constituents and my constituents. That is why we are proposing a bold reform, in the best traditions of Labour, for a comprehensive national care service.

Nigel Evans: I agree with the Minister that health trusts should listen to the people. Will he tell that to the health trust that covers Clitheroe? Some £12 million was made available for a new community hospital, which the health trust stalled last year. The decision should have been made last week but it has now stalled it until September. The people want the hospital. When will the health trust listen?

Mike O'Brien: Of course health trusts need to listen to people and ensure that they make local decisions to manage health provision effectively, based on delivering quality care to people and ensuring that it is done at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

Lindsay Hoyle: We welcome the £50 million that is being given to PCTs for carers, but how much of it has now been spent and what benefits came to central Lancashire?

Phil Hope: The extra money that the Government put into primary care trusts for providing respite care and other services is part of £256 million of extra resources being made available not only through PCTs but through work that we are doing nationally. At local level, we are asking every PCT to account for money spent on support for carers, and that will include the PCTs in my hon. Friend's area.

Sandra Gidley: The chief executive of Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust is currently briefing staff on challenges facing the NHS. The briefing note states that
	"we are currently looking at reducing our workforce by approximately 400 posts during 2010/11 and a further 200 posts in 2011/12."
	There are no guarantees that those will be administrative posts. Is that what is meant by protecting front-line services?

Mike O'Brien: I hear what the hon. Lady says as far as Southampton is concerned. It is important that health trusts manage their budgets, but it is also important that they prioritise the quality of care for patients and ensure that patient safety comes first. I understand that in last night's debate, the hon. Lady's party's Treasury spokesman said that he would not guarantee funds for the NHS.

David Drew: What plans do Ministers have for increasing expenditure on children's and young people's mental health? I know that the Government have rescued the child and adolescent mental health service, but it appears that demand is still far exceeding supply and a lot more has to be done.

Phil Hope: I share my hon. Friend's concern that young people with mental problems get the support that they need in a way that is appropriate to their needs. If we can provide more support for children who have mental health problems, we can do a great deal to prevent young people from becoming adults with mental health problems, thereby relieving pressure on adult mental health services as well. We undertook a review of the child and adolescent mental health service and are currently implementing the recommendations.

Richard Taylor: Will the Secretary of State promote the benefits and safety of midwife-led birth centres distant from consultant obstetric units when they have the right escalation and admission protocols?

Andy Burnham: I will indeed, and that is why I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Hazel Blears) a moment ago that we would support such midwife-led units when they are what local people want. What we will not do is undermine clinically led change. The Opposition have said that they would put doctors in control in the NHS, and they go to marginal seats around the country opposing clinically led change, which is quite scandalous as far as I am concerned.

Michael Fabricant: Earlier, the Under-Secretary told me in answer to my question that 54,758 assaults were made against NHS staff last year. I nipped out of the Chamber and have just found out that there were only 941 cautions or convictions last year. Is that any deterrent to prevent people from assaulting staff?

Ann Keen: As I said earlier, it is not for us in the health service to prosecute; it is for the Crown Prosecution Service. It is for us to provide all the evidence, and that is what we always do and will always continue to do.

Angela Watkinson: The Government's anti-smoking strategy was successful because it used robust messages designed to change people's behaviour. Does the Minister agree that had a similar attitude been used in the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy which failed, the outcomes might have been better?

Gillian Merron: We continue to see a reduction in teenage unwanted pregnancy, and the changes in the curriculum will make a big difference. We continue the work, which is not just about messaging. There is no one thing that will work, but our "Contraception: worth talking about" campaign helps, and the support given to young men and women across the country to enhance their self-esteem will also make a big difference.

Tim Boswell: After 20 years of trying, we now have progress on the reprovision of Brackley college hospital, of which it happens my wife is a trustee. Yet unfortunately, the Government's proposed route for High Speed 2 virtually bisects the proposed site. Will the Minister have a word with his colleagues in the Department for Transport? I do not wish to subvert the railway proposal, because that is a separate issue, but could he ensure that if it proceeds, there is proper reprovision of the college hospital on an alternative site?

Mike O'Brien: As far as high-speed rail is concerned, we certainly need to ensure that there is proper local consultation and that local communities' concerns are fully considered in respect of any route. If there are impacts on public provision, as the hon. Gentleman describes, we need also to ensure that alternative provision is in place so that there is no lack of services for local people.

Tony Baldry: Is the Secretary of State aware that one issue will unite every parliamentary candidate in the Banbury constituency at the forthcoming general election: the retention of consultant-led children's and maternity services at the Horton hospital, and ensuring that it remains a general hospital?

Andy Burnham: I enjoyed immensely my recent visit to the Horton, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and all the local campaigners whom I met-indeed, the campaign spans the political divide. I was hugely impressed by what I saw. I know how much the Horton means to people in Banbury, and it is well located close to the M40. I hope that the review of services that has been going on at the Horton is concluded soon and that it can move forward into the future with confidence.

Drug Classification

Evan Harris: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on what plans he has to classify any drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

David Hanson: Following the receipt of advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has laid a draft order today for Parliament to approve his proposal to control mephedrone and other cathinone derivatives. The chair of the advisory council, Professor Les Iversen, has made it clear to my right hon. Friend that the harms that those drugs undertake justify control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as class B drugs.
	The harms associated with those drugs include hallucinations, blood circulation problems, rashes, anxiety, paranoia, fits and delusions, and they have been linked to a number of deaths. Given the risks to public health, there is strong cross-party support for getting those measures through Parliament, and we hope that the draft order can come into effect as soon as possible, on 16 April 2010.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly waited for the advice from independent expert advisers. The council has provided its assessment of the harms of those drugs having undertaken a full assessment and having reviewed their status through the examination of their use, pharmacology, physical and societal harms. Based on the advisory council's advice and very much in keeping with our approach for the control of synthetic substances, we are also introducing generic legislation that will capture the family of related compounds and other derivatives as well as mephedrone. We have seen a number of those already, but our controls are also aimed at future trends to stop organised criminals and dealers tweaking substances to get around the law.
	In addition, the Government are taking immediate action to control mephedrone's availability and to reduce its harm, first by banning importation and, secondly, by targeting head shops. Thirdly, we are informing young people through the FRANK campaign. Fourthly, we are warning suppliers and, fifthly, we are issuing health warnings and a health alert through public health warning systems. The House will have a further opportunity to discuss that draft order shortly, which is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and I commend it to the House.

Evan Harris: If the ACMD has advised that mephedrone and other cathinones be regulated as a class B drug, I support that recommendation, but does the Minister believe that he or his colleague the Home Secretary are compliant with the newly published principles for the treatment of independent scientific advice, which the Government published last week? They state that the Government must give adequate consideration time for published advice, but the ACMD report has not even been published and the Government have announced legislation. If the Home Secretary received a verbal report yesterday from the ACMD chair, why was it not available at the same time to the media, since the public have a right to know, and indeed to Members of this House? Further, why was there no statement or written ministerial statement today, and why did it take an urgent question to bring the Minister to the House to make this announcement?
	May I ask whether, beyond classification, the report contains any other recommendations to which the Minister will respond, and when does he intend to respond to them? Given that it was the actions of the Home Secretary that led to the resignation of six of the scientific members of the council-undoubtedly delaying the work of the council and resulting in its not being legally constituted at the time that this advice was given-how can the Minister be certain that the regulations that he is now laying are in order, cannot be challenged and will deal with the problem that we both agree exists?

David Hanson: My right hon. Friend has taken the right decision, and that is the key issue for the House today. He has taken that decision on the basis of advice from the advisory council. He received a verbal report from Professor Iversen yesterday afternoon and a report in writing will be presented to the House before consideration of the orders, which I hope will be next week.
	This is not a new issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), when Home Secretary, was aware of this matter in March last year, and she discussed action on it with the advisory council, which commissioned some work. I wish to kill stone-dead the suggestion that the action by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in relation to the sacking of Professor Nutt has delayed publication of the report. The intention was always to produce a report for the meeting of the council on 29 March, and that report was delivered verbally to my right hon. Friend yesterday. He has taken the view that it was of sufficient importance and urgency to take urgent action, so he has laid an order and I hope that the House will in due course support it.

James Brokenshire: The tragic cases of those who are thought to have died as a consequence of taking mephedrone have highlighted the dangers of the drug. As many as 25 deaths have been linked to it. We welcome yesterday's recommendation by the ACMD that mephedrone should be classified.
	However, the Government need to explain why they reacted so late in the day to the dangers of mephedrone and the connected group of drugs. In a letter to the Home Secretary on 22 December, Professor Les Iversen, the chairman of the ACMD, said:
	"The ACMD explained in a previous letter to you that it has concerns about the apparent prevalence and potential harms of these compounds."
	If the Government's own specialist advisers had concerns months ago, why did the Home Secretary not take action then? Just when did he first know of those concerns?
	The Home Secretary's relationship with the ACMD and the resignations of several members have been highlighted as a cause of delay in dealing with the classification of mephedrone, and previously it was suggested that it would be dealt with in the early part of the year. At the last Home Office questions, the Home Secretary rejected the suggestion that this delayed the process by six months. Just how long was consideration extended as a result of the depleted membership of the ACMD and the Home Secretary's inept handling of the resignation of David Nutt?
	Looking forward, does the Minister agree that it is time to introduce a new, temporary classification, as we propose, to provide a means to respond more quickly to emerging new psychoactive substances while enabling specialist input to be provided? Classification should not be seen in isolation. The Government's drugs advice line, FRANK, was initially slow to provide advice on mephedrone because it was not a controlled substance. What systems have been put in place to address that in the future, and more generally what public health campaigns do the Government envisage having on the classification of mephedrone and the message that because a drug is legal does not make it safe?

David Hanson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's initial question is similar to the one that I gave to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), in that as there is a process, that process must be followed. That is done so that we ensure that we do not ban substances that could have a legitimate use, but on the basis of medical advice in accordance with the legal basis for an order. Had I taken the advice of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire), I would have been criticised even more by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon for rushing the matter through. We have to do things in accordance with the process that has been set up by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the previous Home Secretary. The matter has been the subject of much consideration and was not delayed by Professor Nutt's resignation. We had a full complement of existing members, who considered this matter and gave their advice. That was relayed verbally to my right hon. Friend yesterday, and he has taken a decision accordingly for debate.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned what steps we need to take to ensure that this ban is understood widely and that advice is given. In my statement, I indicated that we are placing facts about the use of mephedrone on the FRANK website and we will be distributing a new fact card on the drug so that potential users and suppliers are aware of the ban. The ban will, if approved by both Houses, lead to a potential 14-year maximum jail penalty. We are also issuing health warnings through the public health system. The associated discussions around this order, my right hon. Friend's statement yesterday and the action that we are taking should raise awareness of the dangers of the drug-if they had not been raised already-and show that the Government have taken action on this drug based on legally constituted advice.

Christopher Huhne: The Liberal Democrats certainly welcome the Government's intention to classify mephedrone, but the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs started looking at the drug a year ago. The Home Secretary must surely accept that, if it were not for his meddling in the work of the ACMD and the subsequent resignation of, among others, Dr. Les King-not any old ACMD member, but the person chairing the council's working group on mephedrone-this harmful and possibly fatal substance could have been banned months ago.
	Now that Dr. Polly Taylor has also resigned from the ACMD, can the Minister be confident that any ban that he imposes has been, or can be, reached in a lawful manner, and that it will not be subject to challenge in the courts? Finally, can he draw any other lessons from this episode, such as, for example, the need to introduce a pending category, ahead of the full deliberation, of the sort that exists-I understand-in New Zealand and Sweden?

David Hanson: First, Dr. Taylor's resignation has had no material effect on yesterday's decision, which we believe is legally accountable and enforceable, and which, when approved by both Houses, will be operational. Dr. Taylor had the opportunity to contribute to the decision, as part of the council, and will have played her part accordingly.
	Professor Nutt's resignation has also-

Christopher Huhne: What about Dr. King's resignation?

David Hanson: Professor Nutt's resignation, and indeed Dr. King's and those of other members, have not had a material effect on the consideration of these issues. These matters have been considered by the ACMD, and yesterday, for the first time, it presented a recommendation to the Home Secretary, and my right hon. Friend accepted it. I believe that that was the right decision and one that this House should accept, and rather than looking over the trails of resignations, the hon. Gentleman should support the decision and look at how we implement and, indeed, enforce it.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: Order. A lot of colleagues wish to contribute. I am keen to accommodate them, but time is precious. We have an important debate to follow, in which many people wish to take part, so pithy exchanges are the order of the day.

Keith Vaz: May I welcome the Minister's statement and the decision that has been taken? It is absolutely in keeping with the wishes of the Home Affairs Select Committee-we wrote to him last week on this matter. Party politics aside, however, the fact is that this has taken a very long time. As he just said, the former Home Secretary was alerted to the matter in March 2009. Since then, a number of young people have died, including three teenagers and one young person in the past 10 days. Can we please look at this process, from the time of referral to the time of decision, so that it is as speedy as possible? After all, this drug has been banned in Denmark and Sweden already.

David Hanson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and his Committee for their consideration of these matters. In answer both to him, and to the third point made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), we have considered a possible pending category, but again we must ensure that we have a legal basis for such a decision, and that it does not ultimately impact on any possible legal use for a particular product that could fall into that pending category. We must also determine whether a pending category would lead to confusion about the use of a particular product awaiting a decision.
	We must examine those issues in the round. We have looked at this issue, we have waited for the decision of the advisory council, and I believe that the decision has been effective. We accepted that verbal decision, and within a couple of hours of receiving it, we acted to place an order before the House. We will publish the report in due course, and I hope that that will satisfy the House as a whole.

David Burrowes: The Minister says that cross-party support is required for the classification of mephedrone to be implemented before Dissolution. He will know that my party has given its unambiguous support for what he says, but can he indicate what discussions he has had with the Liberal Democrats, and, given the different strands of their opinion, will he say whether they support early action or whether they think that action should be delayed, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) indicated yesterday?

David Hanson: I hope that we shall be able to pass both orders through both Houses before Dissolution, which could still happen well into early May for all we know, so there will be every opportunity to consider them. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke to the hon. Members for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and for Eastleigh yesterday evening about his decision and has received full support for it, which has been reflected in the House today. I hope that the orders will achieve early passage.

John Mann: The Tories and Liberals are both now nicking my ideas. Considering that the ACMD has never had a majority of scientists on it and considering that new compounds and synthetic drugs-legal highs-are now liable to be created all the time in laboratories, does the Minister agree that one of the priorities of the next Parliament will have to be to update the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in full?

David Hanson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. He has been a sturdy campaigner against drugs in his constituency and throughout the country at large. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary keeps all such matters under review, and we will certainly examine all suggestions for ensuring that we have effective measures in place to protect the British public against illegal drugs that cause death and injury, but which, with the support of this House, will ultimately be banned, so that people will be protected.

Douglas Hogg: I entirely agree with the Minister that due process is important, for all the obvious reasons, but it has taken quite a long time to ban mephedrone. Will he look again at the legislation to see whether the statutory procedures mean that the process takes too long and whether we should review the process with a view to introducing interim orders?

David Hanson: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view on this matter. As I have said previously, we are trying to ensure that we proceed in a way that not only is legally sound and based on evidence, but ensures that we take the right decision for the benefit of protecting the British people from these dangerous drugs. That unfortunately means that, on occasion, we have to take some time to achieve those objectives. However, we will certainly look at whether there are lessons to be learned, because the bottom line for the House is about protecting people from injury and from drugs that are used by people to make money for themselves and exploit our citizens.

Brian Iddon: As the principal psychoactive ingredients of the natural product khat are cathinones, will the proposed order also criminalise those who use khat?

David Hanson: If I may, I might have to write to my hon. Friend about that in due course. I know that the order covers generic legislation relating to the control of a number of synthetic substances, and it will look at related compounds, including cathinone derivatives. However, I shall have to reflect in due course on whether the particular item that my hon. Friend mentioned is covered.

Nigel Evans: In the light of the number of young people who have died through the use of mephedrone and the number of families who have been destroyed because of the loss of their loved ones, please can the Government look again at the processes, because this drug could surely have been controlled a lot earlier? Let me also thank the Minister for completely ignoring the advice of David Nutt. We already know from what he has said previously about cannabis, totally ignoring the mental disorders caused by its constant use, that he is totally out of touch with the people of this country.

David Hanson: As I have said, the purpose of the process is to ensure that we do things legally and as speedily as possible, but that we do them on medical advice. We will certainly reflect on that, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will examine those issues. The circumstances of the resignation of Professor Nutt-

Evan Harris: The sacking.

David Hanson: -are such that Ministers minister and advisers advise. That is the principal policy on this issue.
	Having reflected very carefully on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) raised, I can categorically state that khat will not be covered by the order.

Greg Mulholland: I welcome this announcement, although I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) about the way in which the decision was taken. Will the Minister pass on the Government's advice to the police, schools and student unions in my area? This substance is available in schools at the moment, and leaflets openly advertising the drug for sale are being delivered all round the Headingley and Hyde Park areas. In the interim period, what is the advice on how to stop this unlicensed selling?

David Hanson: As I said in my statement, the banning of importation with immediate effect will mean that the UK Border Agency will be able to seize and destroy shipments of mephedrone at the border. That is the starting point in cutting off supply. We are also giving health warnings to public health departments, to the police and to other health services, as well as through the FRANK website. We are also distributing a new fact card immediately. The Minister for Schools and Learners has written to all head teachers about this. In the event of the orders being enacted, the severe penalty of 14 years in prison for the supply of these drugs will be introduced, and the police will be able to enforce it accordingly.

David Jones: The great majority of online financial transactions for the sale and purchase of mephedrone are processed by a Canadian company called AlertPay. Pending the classification of this drug, will the Minister undertake to alert the Canadian authorities to the involvement of AlertPay in this grubby and dangerous trade?

David Hanson: I will certainly look at that issue and take advice accordingly from our colleagues on the practicalities involved. It is self-evident that our intention is to stop the supply of this product in the United Kingdom, and we will therefore use all legal means to do so, once the orders are approved.

John Mason: The Minister mentioned future trends. It seems to be the way things work in society that the use of these drugs becomes more widespread much more quickly these days. Is it not inevitable, therefore, that our processes also need to become quicker?

David Hanson: I have already said that we will look at the pace of activity governing the matter's consideration. The key point is that we needed to take this action based on evidence, and I am sure that the House would have criticised us had we not done so. Evidence takes time to accumulate, and it needs to be assessed. We also needed to look into the implications of the decision before we took it. We obviously had to look at how we should process the evidence in this case, but I believe that the right decision has been taken, and I hope that the House will support it.

William McCrea: I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister's statement today. Many lives have been blighted and many homes wrecked by these drugs. Can he assure us that, when this becomes law, the police will rigorously and vigorously take action right across the United Kingdom?

David Hanson: I support the hon. Gentleman's contention, and I know how hard he has worked with the Police Service of Northern Ireland to tackle the issue of drugs in his own constituency. When legislation is passed, it is important that the police enforce it. The supply of these illegal drugs will carry severe penalties, and the new legislation will be enforced by the police, should both Houses approve it. I hope that, before Dissolution, the power will be given to the police in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom to execute the orders effectively.

William Cash: As one who has called for the banning of this drug for some time, I ask the Minister to accept that we all welcome his statement. However, the sane voice of Professor Iversen on the "Today" programme this morning suggested that a great deal of internecine warfare had been going on behind the scenes. That is an additional reason for ensuring that procedures such as these are speeded up. Unfortunately, it looks as though some people might have died unnecessarily.

David Hanson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that there was no delay due to the challenges that we faced in relation to the advisory council over the past few months. This decision was expected at the end of March, and it has been delivered to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the end of March. He has taken his decision urgently, based on that advice, and the order was tabled as soon as was practicable after the receipt of that advice in order to expedite the outcome that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see.

Bob Spink: Will the Minister make it clear in relation to any new, unclassified drugs that suppliers will not be able to hide behind descriptions such as "plant food" or terms such as "not for human consumption", because those terms do not give suppliers protection under the Medicines Act 1968? Will he assure the House that those suppliers will always be prosecuted to the full extent?

David Hanson: Again, we have to look at the potential legal use of products, which is part of the advisory council's role. In the case of mephedrone, there is no legal use, so those descriptions are misleading. If the orders are approved, the police will act in a strong and effective way to ensure that we stop the supply.

Points of Order

David Drew: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Business questions has been dominated over recent weeks by the question of what progress is likely to be made on private Members' Bills. The Leader of the House has said on a number of occasions that she intends to progress these Bills. Will you use your good offices to ensure that that happens? Will you ask the Leader of the House to make a statement on how that can be done?

Mr. Speaker: If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is concerned about time. I understand that concern and I have listened carefully to what he had to say. He will, however, understand that I cannot make predictions about the near future: I take matters a day at a time, which seems to me to be a prudent way to proceed. He will also understand that the provision of time is not in the hands of the Chair, but in those of the Government, with whose representatives, I feel sure, he will have the necessary serious and earnest conversations. He has put his concerns on the record and I hope he is moderately satisfied.

Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that on 22 March, the Leader of the House made a statement about lobbying. I specifically asked her about meetings and undue influence involving Charlie Whelan, who is the top political officer of Unite and who is alleged to have an office in No. 10 Downing street. The Leader of the House said:
	"I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman about the situation in relation to the Prime Minister's diary."-[ Official Report, 22 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 35.]
	This very day I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the House, which says absolutely nothing about the Prime Minister's diary, nor about Charlie Whelan, nor about any meetings or undue influence that he might have with the Prime Minister. Sir, would it be possible to ask the Leader of the House to come back and answer this question when she is fully briefed or could the Deputy Leader of the House get the Leader of the House to write to tell me whether Charlie Whelan has met the Prime Minister about Unite in the recent past?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My response is as follows. The Leader of the House is responsible for the content of her answers. I am saddened if the hon. Gentleman is saddened or dissatisfied by the content of the answer, but the responsibility lies with the Leader of the House. The hon. Gentleman is an observant fellow-he would have to be to be the deputy Chief Whip on the Opposition Benches-so he will have noted that the Deputy Leader of the House is present and that she will have heard what he had to say. The hon. Gentleman has served in the House, I think, for 18 years next month. If I did not know him as well as I do, I would have thought that through this attempted point of order, he was seeking to draw me into a debate. Because I know him as well as I do, I know that he would not engage in misbehaviour of that kind.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Andrew Gwynne and I welcome him back after his indisposition.

Andrew Gwynne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point of order by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), given that the amendments to the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill have been withdrawn-sadly, I could not be present in the Chamber for its proceedings-will you use your good offices to ensure that the Bill remains on the Order Paper next week, without the amendments?

Mr. Speaker: I have already ruled on this matter in response to earlier points of order. I understand the very real frustration that the hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and others feel on this matter. He has registered that concern with his usual force and eloquence. Unfortunately, however, the questions of whether it remains on the Order Paper, of whether it is or is not reached and of whether it does or does not reach the statute book is a matter for others. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking to boost my powers, but they are at present limited.

Evan Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the response to the urgent question that we have just heard, the Minister for Policing, Crime and Counter-Terrorism said twice that Professor David Nutt had resigned. What is the best way in which to give the Minister a chance to correct the record if he inadvertently misled the House? When we talk about civil servants or distinguished public servants in the House, we need to be accurate. Professor Nutt's treatment was highly contentious, and he was sacked. He did not resign.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is continuing the debate. He is committing precisely the sin that I knew the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) would not commit.
	The hon. Gentleman, who is a perspicacious fellow, asked me what was the best method of putting the record straight, as he sees it. He has just done exactly that. He is now gesticulating from a sedentary position. It is true that the Minister has not responded, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point fairly and squarely on the record.
	If the appetite of right hon. and hon. Members for raising points of order has now been exhausted, perhaps we can proceed to the next business.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Tax and Financial Transparency Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr. David Drew presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to take steps to obtain tax information from British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies; to require banks, corporations and trusts to provide tax information; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed (Bill 101).

Control of Dogs

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Martin Linton: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require dog-owners to have their dogs micro-chipped; to set a minimum age for dog ownership; to give courts powers to ban households from dog ownership; to require local authorities to provide kennelling for stray dogs and to nominate responsible officers for dog control; to extend the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to private property; to empower the police and local authorities to issue dog control notices; to give police support officers powers to enforce byelaws relating to dogs; to require owners of breeding dogs to be accredited; to set minimum standards for accredited dog breeders; to give local authorities powers to enter premises used for dog breeding; to regulate access to dog ownership data; and for connected purposes.
	Notwithstanding its title, the Bill is less about the control of dogs than about the control of dog owners. This is a problem that many of my hon. Friends have already raised in the House, some by means of private Members' Bills. I think we can all agree that it is the fault not of the dogs themselves but of their owners, many of whom are too young to take on the responsibility of owning and training a dog.
	I do not believe that there is such a thing as a dog that is inherently vicious. If a dog is given tender loving care and training from a young age, it can be gentle.

Ken Purchase: Bow wow!

Martin Linton: Perhaps not my hon. Friend's dog.
	Not all people want a gentle dog, however. Some train them to fight or be vicious to warn people off, and sometimes to help them to commit crimes. Others simply do not know how to train or look after them. For many such people, dogs are a weapon. As the penalties for possession of guns and knives have become tougher, they have turned to dogs. Indeed, they prefer them in some ways. It is not necessary to hide them, for instance. As with guns and knives, they set off a chain reaction: other people buy dogs to protect themselves, but they in turn are seen as possible aggressors by others who then buy dogs to defend themselves.
	The present legislation on dogs is a jumble. Many prosecutions are brought under obsolete Victorian legislation such as the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, which makes it an offence to have a ferocious dog unmuzzled in a public place but also makes it an offence to fire a cannon close to a dwelling house. Fewer prosecutions are brought under the more recent Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. I think we have all come to realise that breed-specific legislation is a mistake. It costs the police more than £1 million a year to kennel dogs so that they can be examined by experts to establish whether they belong to a banned breed, a fact that is largely irrelevant to the danger that they pose.
	I commend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), and the Secretary of State on recognising the need to sweep away this patchwork of legislation and bring in a modern law to deal with today's problems. My hon. Friend visited Battersea Dogs and Cats home with me recently, and listened carefully to the advice given there. I do not think he would be wrong to see my Bill as a shopping list of things that we would like to see in a comprehensive Control of Dogs Bill, including most of the options on which he is consulting and a few more besides.
	At the top of the list is microchipping. More than 40 per cent. of dogs are microchipped and are on the pet log database. My local authority, Wandsworth, microchips the dogs of all tenants. Battersea dogs home automatically does it to all dogs for £15. A law is required, however, to make it compulsory for all dogs in public places-although I do not think it need apply to farm dogs or sheep dogs-and also for owners to have to update the database when they move or transfer ownership. That would make it possible to set a minimum age for dog ownership. Battersea dogs home will re-home a dog only to somebody over 18, or 21 for a bull breed or guarding dog, which I think is a pretty good guide. The courts can already ban someone from dog ownership, but, in practice, people just transfer ownership to other members of their household. Therefore, a power to ban a household from keeping a dog is needed.
	Since responsibility for strays was passed from the police to local authorities in April, it has become apparent that many local authorities have no kennelling at all. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 made some important reforms, but it was a mistake for it to say that local authorities need provide kennelling only "where practicable". Those are weasel words and the law needs to require them to provide that.
	My council has a dog officer, Mark Callis, and six wardens who do a very good job, but even they cannot cope with the amount of work. Many other boroughs cannot cope-indeed, many of them do not have a dog warden at all. We must place an obligation on councils to have dog control officers.
	Dangerous dogs are a huge issue in my constituency. People queue up to sign our petition and to support the campaign run on this issue by the  Wandsworth and Putney Guardian. Dog fouling is the only issue that eclipses dangerous dogs and it should certainly be an equally prominent aim of this Bill to increase the powers of dog wardens and police community support officers to deal with dog fouling. In particular, PCSOs should have the power to enforce byelaws on the offence.
	In Battersea and other areas there has been a rapid increase in demand for Staffordshire bull terriers and cross breeds. As the registered breeders have been unable to keep up with demand, some people have started breeding them in their front rooms and selling them on the internet and in pubs. A casual glance at internet sites such as Gumtree will reveal that cross-breed puppies are for sale for about £200, with the seller contactable via a mobile phone number, no address given. I know nothing about these individual breeders, of course, and some will, perhaps, be good while others will be bad, but what I do know is that many of these puppies end up as aggressive and unsocialised dogs abandoned after two years and left at Battersea dogs home, often in a pitiable state.
	Even if the professional breeders will bridle at any official accreditation scheme, I think they will recognise that the problems are being caused by back-street breeders who are running front-room puppy farms. Safe in the knowledge that no one has the right to inspect, they are often operated without the provision of exercise, training or decent sanitation. If puppies are to be sold, local authorities need to have the power to enter premises used for dog breeding, and there must be set minimum standards of space, hygiene, exercise and training. In order to achieve that, the owners of breeding dogs need to be accredited. That does not need to be complicated-it could be as simple as a phone call to the town hall-but we must have some such scheme. It would be best if accreditation was done through the breed societies and the Kennel Club, and if the microchip database was left in the ownership of PetLog and the other organisations that currently run that, but in any case this requirement clearly needs to be backed by law.
	I again commend the Government on their consultation paper, and I urge them to carry out a comprehensive reform and to consolidate all the legislation in a single Act. I hope my Bill will serve to point the way.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Martin Linton, Lynda Waltho, Ms Angela C. Smith, Frank Cook, Bob Russell, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Dr. Brian Iddon, Harry Cohen, Ms Diane Abbott, Chris McCafferty, Jim Sheridan and Norman Baker present the Bill.
	Martin Linton accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April and to be printed (Bill 99).

Ways and Means
	 — 
	Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

AMENDMENT OF THE LAW

Debate resumed (Order, 24 March).
	 Question again proposed,
	That-
	(1) It is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.
	(2) This Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide-
	(a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation,
	(b) for refunding an amount of tax,
	(c) for any relief, other than a relief that-
	(i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and
	(ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.

Edward Balls: It is a great honour to be invited to open this final day of the Budget debate and to set out the steps we are taking in my Department to support families and public services. I was disappointed to discover, just five minutes ago, that the shadow Education Secretary will not be replying to this debate after all, but may I say how pleased I am that the reply will instead be made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the shadow Business Secretary, who is someone of long experience? As a former Chancellor, Health Secretary and Education Secretary, he will know all about the dilemmas of making the sums add up and protecting front-line services-or not. I can think of nobody better to guide me, the House and the shadow Education Secretary on some of the choices before our country.

John Mann: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, I am sure that he will wish to recognise that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe is also wonderfully positioned to demonstrate what the Tory party in government is like at the moment, because his and my local county council has been cutting care homes and cutting services to the elderly in just the past few weeks. Indeed, I have with me a petition with the names of 1,500 people who are protesting about its actions.

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is right about that. However, to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman some credit, I should say that he was responsible for cutting VAT as Chancellor of the Exchequer. His predecessor tried to raise VAT on fuel and that was defeated in this place by votes from those on this side of the House, so he then had the opportunity to reverse that shift in VAT. That marks him out in contrast with pretty much every other Conservative Chancellor, as they tended to raise VAT. I shall not dwell on that comparison for the moment.

Alex Salmond: rose-

Edward Balls: It is very nice to see the right hon. Gentleman in the House, and I shall give way to him once I have made a little progress.
	The Chancellor's Budget sets out the choices we are making to secure Britain's future. The first one is to secure the recovery and promote growth and jobs while halving the deficit steadily over the next four years. The second is to match pay and spending restraint in lower priority areas with fair tax increases-the new top rate of tax, the bankers' bonus tax and the national insurance rise. Everyone will make a contribution, but 60 per cent. of the extra taxes will come from the richest 5 per cent. of the population. The third is that alongside detailed proposals for savings of £11 billion in every Government Department, including my own, action will be taken to protect front-line services, such as the police, schools and hospitals, which families need and which play such a vital role in our country.

William Cash: rose-

Edward Balls: I shall give way in a moment, but I wish to make this point. The Chancellor considered proposals to cut the deficit faster and with deeper and immediate cuts, but concluded that such action would throw people out of work, threaten the recovery and lead to more debt, not less. He also rejected deeply unfair plans to cut child tax credits from middle income families and to cut child trust funds too while promising an inheritance tax cut that would benefit millionaires to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds. He concluded that to refuse to go ahead with the national insurance rise from next April and instead put all the burden of deficit reduction on cutting spending would require deep and savage cuts across all our public services, including our children's centres, colleges and schools. To take the road of drastic and immediate cuts in front-line services and family benefits would be reckless and unfair, and that is not this Government's choice.
	I want to set out the detail of how my Department will be affected by Budget and pre-Budget report decisions, but I shall first give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). If the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has had time to learn about what is in the Budget, he will probably have thought of his intervention as well.

William Cash: About two weeks ago, I asked a question about the record of the Labour county council in Staffordshire on education-specifically on the extent of A grades and on general conduct since then as compared with what is going on in the rest of the country. Unfortunately, the relevant Minister replied that he was not able to give me that information. Will the Secretary of State be good enough to accelerate the provision of that information and ensure that I get it before Dissolution?

Edward Balls: I am happy to do just that. I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets the information he requests. I also point out to him that the schools in his county are currently in the Building Schools for the Future programme but have not yet reached financial close. I am sure that he will be informing his constituents in his election leaflets about the very real risks to the building of schools in his constituency if they vote for him in the forthcoming general election.

Alex Salmond: May I go back to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke)? If I remember correctly, he had the misfortune of being the Health Secretary and then the Education Secretary under Margaret Thatcher. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has accepted that the cuts envisaged by this Government will be deeper and tougher than Margaret Thatcher's, so how, given that the Education Secretary is now stranded in his Department, is the Education Secretary going to reconcile that position any better than the right hon. and learned Gentleman did?

Edward Balls: The right hon. Gentleman is a student of economics and will have studied that period in great detail. I have looked at the record of that period and it is true that capital spending under the Thatcher Government was very low and stayed very low indeed throughout the entire period of her government. That is why schools were leaking, hospitals were not built and train tracks were not working. It is also true-this might have been because of the persuasion of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe; I shall come back to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) in a moment-that the education and health budgets rose during that period. However, Margaret Thatcher broke the link between pensions and earnings, froze child benefit and raised VAT from 8 to 15 per cent. within weeks of coming into office. It was all that, plus the high interest rates, that led to high and mass unemployment and devastation for millions of families. I must say that the policies of cutting benefits for families, cutting support for pensioners and, potentially, raising VAT for families to make up for a budget hole all sound rather familiar.

Kenneth Clarke: I hasten to interrupt the series of references to me and the rather inaccurate wanderings down memory lane. Could we get to where we are now? Has the Secretary of State come here to agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government, if re-elected, would make cuts in public spending deeper and tougher than those made by Margaret Thatcher's Government? Does he accept that statement? If so, will he go on to explain how that will affect his Department and others?

Edward Balls: I am very happy to set out the details of exactly what I am going to be doing in my budget. That is what my speech will be about. The interesting thing about the early years of the Thatcher Government is not that they cut education spending; indeed, education spending rose. What they did do, however, was raise VAT from 8 to 15 per cent. to make up a budget hole, have interest rates in double figures for many years, break the link between pensions and earnings, and freeze child benefit. There was a doubling of child poverty in those 18 years. What if we have a Conservative Government again? Rising VAT, cuts to family benefits, rising poverty, and pensioners getting a raw deal-that is exactly the prospectus on offer from the Conservative party.

John Hayes: Will the Secretary of State confirm a very straightforward fact--that the growth of gross domestic product was at its greatest in the first three years of this Government? At that time, it was constrained by a fiscal regime inherited from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), but it has waivered since then.

Edward Balls: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that we had a decade of stability, with low interest rates and low inflation, because of the great leadership and prescience of an independent Bank of England. That was opposed by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who said that Bank of England independence was a mistake and should not have been introduced. I expect that he has recanted now, but he can set the record straight when he speaks. He can probably tell us his views on VAT, the winter fuel allowance and free bus travel as well, although I think that he was contradicted fairly quickly by the Leader of the Opposition when he gave his views on those matters a week or so ago.

Sally Keeble: I very much welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to protect the schools budget. In the course of his speech, will he explain how the extra £6 billion in cuts advocated by the Opposition would impact on it?

Edward Balls: I will turn to that very subject now. I hope that I can give some comfort-

Simon Burns: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Edward Balls: No, I will not. I hope that I can give some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) about our plans, after which I shall set out the opposing choice. After that, I shall be very happy to give way, but I want to make some progress first.
	The pre-Budget report and the Budget set out how, consistent with reducing the deficit steadily, we can maintain and in fact increase spending in our priority areas. For my Department, the Budget confirmed a real-terms rise in funding of 0.72 per cent. a year in 2011-2012 and 2012-13 for Sure Start, 16-to-19 education and schools, which account for around 75 per cent. of my overall budget.
	Teachers' pensions make up a further 17 per cent., of my budget, but I am not proposing to touch them at all. That leaves 8 per cent. of my budget unprotected, money that covers programmes such as short breaks for disabled children, sport, music and looked-after children, as well as funding for our non-departmental Government bodies.
	I have committed to finding £500 million of savings from that 8 per cent. unprotected portion of my budget. That is a 7 per cent. cut on £5 billion worth of savings in 2012-13, and-unlike the shadow Chancellor, let alone the shadow Education Secretary-I have also identified where those savings will be made.
	So far, I have set out £300 million of savings in my Department. The £135 million that will come from non-departmental Government bodies will include £45 million from cutting funding to Becta, and £55 million from the Training and Development Agency for Schools. Also, £100 million will come from ending start-up funding for extended services, while £50 million can be saved by scaling back bursaries for initial teacher training, given that we now have a flow of new teachers coming through. A further £21 million will be saved in communications and back-office functions.
	That all adds up to £300 million in savings, but I still have to find a further £200 million. That will be hard, but I am determined to do so without cutting into front-line spending programmes such as the support for music and sports, and for looked-after and disabled children.

Philip Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that teachers' pensions were part of his budget. Will he confirm that teachers' pension contributions are funded not from his budget but directly from the Treasury?

Edward Balls: A total of 13 per cent. of my budget covers pensions. The document that the Government published a few days ago showed our overall spending, and it includes a footnote making it clear that pension contributions are part of our departmental expenditure limit. I included pensions in the description of my budget because the shadow Education Secretary always includes them when he explains how easy it would be to find cuts. He always refers to our £60 billion-plus budget, so- [ Interruption. ] But if they are not in my budget, I have to say to the shadow Business Secretary that they are not available for the shadow Education Secretary to cut. That is the point. If only the shadow Education Secretary were here, he could set the record straight. Unfortunately, however, he is not here.

Simon Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Balls: I said that I would take an intervention, and I will do so in a moment.
	I shall explain what I have protected. The settlement in the protected 75 per cent. of my budget is for Sure Start funding to rise in line with inflation, which will mean that we will meet our commitment to having 3,500 children's centres, or one in every community. For 16-to-19 learning, there will be a 0.9 per cent. real-terms rise, year on year, in 2011-12 and 2012-13, which means that we can pay for our guarantee-for every school leaver, a school, college or apprenticeship place for the next three years.
	Finally, for schools, there is a real-terms overall rise in funding of 0.7 per cent., which, combined with efficiency savings, will mean that schools can meet their front-line cost pressures. After paying for 80,000 projected extra pupils, per pupil funding on our plans will rise, on average, in cash terms, by 2.1 per cent. in 2011-12 and 2012-13, on top of 4.3 per cent. in the coming financial years.
	That is a tougher settlement than we have been used to, but the per pupil rise in cash terms-2.1 per cent.-is a real-terms rise in budget. It is more than our projected cost pressures, as we set out in the document. It means that we can deliver our guarantees of one-to-one tuition to every child who falls behind. It means that we can keep additional teachers and support staff in the classroom. It means that we can continue to invest in Building Schools for the Future. These are guarantees to the public from this Government, in legislation and based on rising budgets for Sure Start, school leavers and schools-guarantees not matched by the Conservative party, for reasons I shall explain.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Edward Balls: I give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe.

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. May I refer him to page 90 of the Red Book and paragraph 6.16? Referring to the Secretary of State's Department, the last sentence of that paragraph says:
	"Taken together, this amounts to a total of £1.1 billion of education frontline efficiencies to be delivered by 2012".
	With great respect, he has just given the most muddled and confused description of where any of that money is coming from, and he has wound up announcing a cash increase that is less than inflation, so it is a real-terms cut. As he has conceded that education spending rose under the Thatcher Government because of our choice of priorities, does he agree that this is indeed tougher and deeper than anything the Thatcher Government ever did?

Edward Balls: No. It is not fair to the shadow Business Secretary: why should he be here answering on the details of education policy when he does not know the facts? The £1.1 billion of efficiency savings are efficiency savings within the overall schools budget, which are being recycled from the back office in schools to the front line in schools. They are not reductions in school budgets; they are recycled efficiencies within the overall budget. The only reductions in budget that I have agreed to are the- [Interruption.] I will finish the point. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should intervene from a sedentary position. He is much more experienced in the rules of the House than I am, and he knows that he has to intervene if he has something to say.
	I have a half a billion pound cut, and I have told the House how I am finding £300 million of that. The £1 billion of efficiency savings are going back to the schools, not being taken away from them. Schools are seeing their funding rising per pupil in cash terms by 2.1 per cent. a year. And when we add in 80,000 extra places, we have made it clear in the document "School Funding 2010-13"-the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not have read it; why should he?-that projected cost pressures are 1.6 per cent. in schools over that period. That is a real-terms rise; it is not a real-terms cut. It is a real-terms rise compared to inflation as well. We are raising spending, and I shall come in a moment to what the choice is after taking an intervention from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).

Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Despite all the waffle and the meanderings we are getting, will he now, so that we can put his speech in its proper context, answer the original question put to him by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) about the Chancellor's comments on cuts and the Thatcher Government?

Edward Balls: I did answer it, but I will say it again. When we came to government in 1997, the schools capital building programme was about £700 million, and today it is £7.8 billion. That is how we have managed to rebuild and refurbish 4,000 secondary schools. Over that 18 years, schools capital was decimated. Schools' current spending, as I said, rose in the early part of the Thatcher Government. There were cuts in '85 and cuts in '89. I have to say that the biggest spending cuts did not occur under the Thatcher Government; they occurred under the Major-Clarke Government between 1992 and 1997. What happened with the Thatcher Government was not spending cuts. Let us not forget that they had North sea oil revenues, which they were squandering. VAT was up to 15 per cent., the link with pensions was broken, child benefit was frozen and child poverty doubled. If my constituents are wondering whether they want to go back to a Conservative Government, when they look at that record they will say no, no, no.

Brian Binley: The Secretary of State is moving at an amazing speed and sometimes it is a little difficult to keep up with his flow of words. He intimated that he favoured the increase in the higher rate of income tax. He thought it was a good idea-at least, that is the impression I got. Will he therefore recommend to the Chancellor that he should keep that as a permanent increase?

Edward Balls: That is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for me. I am not going to start telling the Chancellor what his tax policy should be. I will not say, "Cut national insurance," when there are not the cuts to pay for it, and when I know in my heart that we will end up raising VAT to pay for it, which is what the shadow Chancellor proposes. I am not going to start telling the Chancellor what to do in future on tax policy. But when the country is faced with a pre-Budget report from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South-West (Mr. Darling), or from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), I know which Chancellor the British people will choose.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the Conservative Members who usually come to the Chamber when education is being discussed do not seem to be here today, including the Front-Bench education spokesman? It is no wonder that the shadow Business Secretary seems unable to keep up with the momentum of my right hon. Friend's speech. Is it not a fact that there is good news on the education budget, excellent news on children's centres and Sure Start, and excellent news on the protection of looked-after children? Will he just clarify one point? Are there sufficient resources for raising the age of participation to 17 and then 18?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend has a strong track record of contributing to education debates. I have to say it is rather good to have a different crowd in. I will try not to speak too quickly. I will try to talk a little slower for the benefit of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley).
	In 1997, we had leaking roofs, photocopied text books, demoralised teachers, two thirds of children not making the grade, and more than half our schools not at our basic performance benchmark. Now, we have 4,000 schools rebuilt, funding per pupil doubled, 42,000 more teachers, 120,000 more teaching assistants, half of pupils making the grade, not a third, and not half of schools not making the grade, but fewer than one in 12. That is a Labour record of investment and reform that we are truly proud of.
	The commitments that we are making to rising funding in the years ahead mean that, yes, we can pay for our one-to-one guarantee; yes, we will continue with Building Schools for the Future; and, yes, we will continue with Sure Start children's centres in every community. We will not be cutting Sure Start children's centres as the Conservative party proposes, because, as my hon. Friend's Select Committee report said, what a retrograde step that would be for children and the future of our country. That is not something that people will see from a Labour Government.

Anne McIntosh: The Conservative party will not abolish Sure Start, and I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would take this opportunity to correct that for the record. Will he give the House an assurance today that pupils in North Yorkshire, and particularly in the Vale of York, receive as much per capita funding as those in his own constituency?

Edward Balls: The hon. Lady is a contributor to our education debates, so she will have studied in detail the consultation on the future of the dedicated schools grant. We are looking to ensure that we reflect rurality, deprivation, need and per pupil funding. I hope to make some progress. My constituency is in one of the F40 areas as well, so I understand the issues that she raises. I want to come on to the funding of education now on the basis of a different approach.
	I must say to the hon. Lady that, as I understand it, the Opposition do not propose to abolish Sure Start, but if the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury would like to stand up today and say that the Conservative party will match my commitment to rising budgets in cash terms and in line with inflation for Sure Start this year, next year and the year after, he is very welcome to do so. However, he is not going to, because unfortunately Sure Start is not in the protected areas-health and international development-that the shadow Chancellor set out.
	The Leader of the Opposition says that he wants Sure Start to be only for the poorest communities, and two years ago the Opposition said that they wanted a £200 million cut to the Sure Start budget. That sends a message to parents throughout the country, and it sends a chill down their spine. That is why we will continue to highlight it.
	Let me move on.

John Baron: rose-

Gordon Prentice: rose-

Edward Balls: I shall give way in a second.
	I should like to set out in more detail our policy on Sure Start, on 16-to-19 funding and on schools, but before I do so I must say that there is a choice about different priorities and the different ways in which we fund things. This Budget has at its heart different choices, and to be fair to the Opposition they have been setting out their very different choices in recent days. If the shadow Education Secretary were here, I would not ask him to match me on schools spending or on pupil guarantees. I know that that is difficult for him, because he has different priorities. There are also problems that he has to face, and I understand his dilemma, which I shall explain to the shadow Business Secretary. He could answer and guide the shadow Education Secretary on how he should navigate those complexities.
	First, the shadow Education Secretary has a free schools policy, which will be on all the leaflets of all Opposition Members, so it will be good for them to hear about the detail of it. The extra places in that policy will cost about £1.8 billion over the next Parliament-from within the schools budget or from my unprotected £5 billion. It will also lead to shifting about £4 billion from the Building Schools for the Future budget to pay for the new free schools.
	Secondly, the shadow Education Secretary proposes to find about £2 billion to £3 billion, we think, for a new national pupil premium. Hon. Members-other than those who are experts on schools funding-may not know that, because they may not have followed the detail. As far as I have worked out, if the hon. Gentleman is to pay for the free schools policy and the national pupil premium, either he has to cut my unprotected budgets, which include those for sports, music, disabled children, short breaks-

Philip Hammond: They're not yours, by the way.

Edward Balls: My Department's budgets.
	The shadow Education Secretary will have to cut either those budgets by about 50 per cent. or the schools budget. That was his dilemma before, and that is why up to now he has not been willing to match me on the school leaver's guarantee. He cannot make that guarantee. He has not matched me on Sure Start children's centres; he will not match me on the schools budget; and the Opposition voted against the one-to-one tuition guarantees in our recent Children, Schools and Families Bill.
	Now, however, the hon. Gentleman faces an extra complexity, as the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury will know: unfortunately, the shadow Education Secretary has been asked to contribute to the £6 billion of extra savings, which were announced yesterday, to pay for the national insurance tax freeze. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, as I am sure the shadow Chief Secretary knows, calculates that that would involve a 2.8 per cent. cut for unprotected Departments. That would mean cutting a further £1.7 billion a year from the Sure Start, schools and children's budgets-were the Conservatives to be elected. As I said, it is no wonder the shadow Education Secretary cannot match our pledges.

Philip Hammond: As the right hon. Gentleman has studied our announcement yesterday in such detail, has he calculated the saving to the schools budget from the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions that we announced?

Edward Balls: I have just calculated that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, the shadow Education Secretary, who is not here, will have to find £1.8 billion over a Parliament to pay for the free schools policy; £2 billion to £3 billion a year to pay for the national pupil premium; and £1.7 billion a year to make his contribution to the shadow Chief Secretary's spending cuts. So I am afraid that that massively outweighs not only the national insurance rebate for employers, but the whole £5 billion budget that, for me, is unprotected. There is no way the hon. Member for Surrey Heath can pay for those measures, other than by making deep cuts to the schools budgets: fewer teachers, fewer teaching assistants and larger class sizes.
	The thing that baffles me is why education has been singled out in that way. Why has education not been given priority, alongside health and international development? Perhaps the shadow Business Secretary will give us some guidance, because it is very puzzling to those of us who follow education debates. Why is the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, a member of the Notting Hill set and the guy who does the role play for Prime Minister's questions, being unfairly treated in that way?

Kenneth Clarke: First, let me point out that when the Secretary of State started attributing what he thought our policies meant for the education budget, he attributed to the shadow Department things that have not been attributed to it at all out of yesterday's announcement. Secondly, he missed the point my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) made about the savings that would be made by the reduction in national insurance contributions-about 0.5 per cent. of the total pay bill. I cannot produce that figure off the cuff-my hon. Friend might be able to do so. The Secretary of State probably can, if he can sort it out from the other figures.

Edward Balls: I cannot do the detail of the shadow Education Secretary's sums for him-nor can Carol Vorderman. However, the overall gap in his budget-£1.8 billion over the course of a Parliament, £1.7 billion to find the savings cuts to contribute to the £6 billion, and, we think, £2 billion to £3 billion to pay for the pupil premium-is more than the entire amount of money from the employers' national insurance rise. The idea that just the rebate to schools would pay for those cuts is unrealistic. There is no way to fund the cuts that education would have to contribute other than by cuts in the numbers of teachers and teaching assistants, bigger class sizes, and cuts to the Sure Start budget.
	If the hon. Member for Surrey Heath were here, we could ask him to answer these questions, but he is not. If he were here, we could have said to him, "Will you guarantee to match us on Sure Start, on schools and on 16 to 19-year-olds?", but he cannot do that. It is not just that he cannot do it today-at every stage in the Budget debates- [ Interruption. ] I am happy to inform the junior shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands)-I do not know whether he is the shadow Economic Secretary or Financial Secretary; I apologise-about the Budget debates. Last year's Budget debate was opened by me, as well. I think that on that occasion the shadow Education Secretary did turn up, unlike today.

John Baron: The Secretary of State talks about help for poorer communities, but does he not accept that the freezing of personal allowances will hit the lowest paid the hardest?

Edward Balls: The freezing of personal allowances, which was announced in the pre-Budget report, is part of a package of tax rises to reduce the deficit, which also includes the bankers' bonus and the national insurance rise. As I said, everybody makes a contribution, but the more well-off people in our society make a bigger contribution. That has been set out very clearly. I do not hear Opposition Front Benchers saying that they are going to reverse the decision on personal allowances-perhaps they can clarify that in the debate-but they are trying to freeze the national insurance rise, which they would pay for by making cuts to children's centres, schools and apprenticeships while they spent £1.5 billion-plus on a cut in inheritance tax that would go only to millionaires. It is absolutely shocking.

John Hayes: rose-

Edward Balls: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman once before, so I will carry on.
	I have been trying to work out why the education spokesperson has had such a raw deal. It could have been because of the critical comments he has made in the past about the shadow Business Secretary, although given that so many people on the Conservative Front Bench have done that, it would be unfair to single out the shadow Education Secretary. It may be because of what he wrote a few years ago in his column in  The Times:
	"the Tories, fatally, foolishly, put all their eggs in the Belize basket. They secured the short-term comfort of Mr Ashcroft's tax-sheltered millions, but have paid the price in credibility forgone"-
	wise words from the shadow Education Secretary, one would have to say. He went on to say-and this is the problem:
	"Mr Hague certainly has a well-developed sense of humour...You certainly do not emerge strengthened as an opponent of cronyism by expending what credibility you have acting as the paid lobbyist for your own title-hungry Treasurer."
	That is what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath wrote a few years ago; perhaps that is why he has been singled out.
	On the other hand, there may be some hope. Lord Ashcroft has already sponsored an academy in Wandsworth, so perhaps he is going to pay for the free-market schools policy as well, although we can just imagine the curriculum-not so much financial education as tax avoidance education, not school trips but extended overseas trips, not book clubs but beach clubs, not the Swedish model but the Belize model, excellence for the few paid for by cuts-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State is now going to concentrate on aspects of the Budget relating to public services.

Edward Balls: The reason why this is relevant to the Budget debate is that our Chancellor and our Prime Minister have set out a steady reduction in the deficit, not reckless cuts now that would put public services and jobs at risk. They have a balanced approach of fair tax rises combined with some spending restraint, and they included it in the Budget in a way that has protected schools, children's centres and 16-to-19 funding as well as the police and the NHS. To try to reverse the national insurance rise next year by cutting spending on schools and children's centres this year would be barmy economics. It would lead to fewer jobs, more unemployment and rising debt. It would be a perverse and misguided Budget strategy. That is why coming along and explaining the implications of the Budget for education, Sure Start and 16-to-19 apprenticeships and college places is well worth while.

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps there is no reason for the Secretary of State to know this, but I am an honorary graduate of Anglia Ruskin university, as is my noble Friend Lord Ashcroft, who also funds a business school at the university. On a point of information, the right hon. Gentleman ought to know that fact.  [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am well capable of determining whether or not that is a point of order. The hon. Lady herself has indicated that it was really a point of information, so there is no need whatever for me to comment on it. Let the debate continue.

Edward Balls: Whether it was a point of order or a point of information, I am not sure that I really got the point. I am happy to take another intervention from the hon. Lady, and if she could explain her point in a little more detail, I will try to answer it.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that the business school at Anglia Ruskin university is funded by the noble Lord to whom he referred, whose reputation I believe he was trying to besmirch?

Edward Balls: I was in no way trying to besmirch his reputation. I fear that it is the shadow Foreign Secretary's reputation that has been besmirched by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath rather than that of Lord Ashcroft. To be fair to Lord Ashcroft, he is sponsoring an academy, and he may well end up paying for the free schools policy as well. He is certainly paying for the Conservative party's election campaign-all credit to him.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we now get back to the debate on the Budget?

Barry Sheerman: rose-

Edward Balls: I am happy to take an intervention from my hon. Friend.

Barry Sheerman: I spoke last Thursday at that very business school, the Ashcroft school of business at Anglia Ruskin university, and I can tell my right hon. Friend-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made a ruling, and there is no need for that debate to continue. The ruling was that we must get on with the debate before us, which is the fourth day of the Budget debate.

Barry Sheerman: I am tying that to the Budget because-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State.

Edward Balls: I will say only that we announced today that 15 more academies are now moving forward through their funding agreements. We now have more than 55 universities sponsoring academies, and if Lord Ashcroft would like to sponsor an academy through his university, I would be very grateful indeed to receive the resources. The fact that they would now come not from non-dom money but from proper tax-paid money would be very welcome.

Denis MacShane: My point is about a very modest element of public expenditure. I met three constituents last week, Mr. Kevin Lomas, Miss Sarah Johnson and Rachel Hughes, all of whom- [Interruption.] They all- [Interruption.] They all- [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman making an intervention? Please continue.

Denis MacShane: I am trying to! They all have autistic children, which Opposition Members seem to find funny, and they cannot get a statement. Is there any way we can encourage more statements and more individual support for our autistic children? I hope that that is a reasonable intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Edward Balls: My right hon. Friend is a well known campaigner on that matter. I must inform him that this morning, I did a video for TreeHouse, which has a special school in north London for children with autism, about its "talk about autism" campaign. Talking about autism is very important. If we were to start cutting the budgets beyond the £500 million that I have committed to, it would be support for children with special educational needs that was at risk, so I welcome my right hon. Friend's intervention.

Lembit �pik: The Secretary of State has been talking about 16-to-19 funding, and he may or may not be aware that in my constituency, the local authority is seeking to merge the sixth forms of the six high schools in an effort to save money. Does he have a view on the dangers of ripping out sixth forms to save money, potentially at the cost of education in those rural communities?

Edward Balls: I do not want to see anybody ripping out educational provision in a haphazard and random way; to do so, or to have a free market in schools policy whereby one rips schools from one community to give to another, is also very dangerous. The right thing to do is to ensure that we plan education provision for 14 to 19-year-olds properly across an area. I would be very happy to look at that matter in greater detail.
	Let me conclude, because we have gone on for some time.

Annette Brooke: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Edward Balls: Okay.

Annette Brooke: On that very point-I need to declare an interest in that my daughter teaches at this school-the local Tory authority is proposing to take £8 million away from the primary capital programme for a school in a deprived area and to put it with the £1 million that the Government have generously given to provide 150 extra primary places elsewhere. Will the Secretary of State investigate that?

Edward Balls: Members of the House who are regulars at Children, Schools and Families questions will know that it is my habit to offer meetings with the Minister for Schools and Learners to discuss any difficult issues. He tells me that he was already planning such a meeting to discuss pupil place planning with the hon. Lady, and I will ensure that that is expedited to ensure that she and he do not miss their chance.
	To conclude, to be fair to him, the shadow Chief Secretary told us this last Wednesday: Unlike Labour, we have protected the whole of the NHS budget and the overseas aid budget. When I asked, What about schools? he said, We have not ring-fenced the schools budget; we have ring-fenced the NHS budget and the overseas aid budget. The fact that the schools budget is not ring-fenced means that it is a prime target now, so if the Conservatives get their way, we might see cuts in teachers and teaching assistants, larger class sizes, and fewer children's centres and apprenticeships. We will not take that drastic road of cutting front-line spending and family benefits. That would be reckless and unfair, and it would lead to higher debt, more unemployment and-if history is a guide-another Tory hike in VAT.
	We will cut the deficit steadily and put growth and jobs first; we will match public spending restraint with fair tax increases; and we will protect the police, the NHS, and Sure Start, college and schools budgets so that every child can succeed, and I commend this Budget to the House.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is the final day of the Budget debate, which is usually wound up by the Chief Secretary and the shadow Chief Secretary, but the former is not in the Chamber, and he has not been here for the whole of the opening speech. Is it likely that he will not catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, come the winding-up speeches?

Denis MacShane: Is that a point of order?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is correct. It is certainly usual to see in the Chamber-the occupant of the Chair would expect this-the people who are making the winding-up speeches on behalf of both the Government and the Opposition. Clearly, if those Members are not present, it is entirely their responsibility as far as the House is concerned, but it would be usual to see them in their places now.

Kenneth Clarke: Thank you for your ruling on that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The debate was opened by the Children, Schools and Families Secretary, who plainly came here thinking that this was a debate about education and schools policy; and it is supposed to be wound up by a Treasury Minister, who so far has not appeared. That is obviously not the main point of the debate, and I shall try to avoid it. However, I am one of the minority of senior Members who is not retiring at the coming election-if my constituents are prepared to consent-and in all my years in the House of Commons I do not remember a single debate on Government business in which the Minister who proposed to wind up failed to turn up. Perhaps the Chief Secretary intends to come after his dinner or his coffee break.

Edward Balls: rose-

Kenneth Clarke: I will give way in a moment, because there may be an explanation and I am prepared to listen to it. As the Government have belatedly come to pretend, after 13 years, that they are a reforming Government and are taking an interest in constitutional reform-and as in my experience the present Prime Minister, like the previous one, regards the House of Commons as a somewhat inconvenient press conference that Ministers would rather not attend-can the Secretary of State tell us whether this is an instance of changing custom and that the Government intend that Ministers should attend only to make their speeches and should not have to listen to or participate in the debate to which they are replying?

Edward Balls: I do not know the answer, but we will get an answer as soon as possible. It is possible that the Chief Secretary is meeting the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove).

Kenneth Clarke: There may be a reasonable explanation, but I shall not take more time from the debate on the Budget to labour the point too far. However, it is a serious point. It is ridiculous if, on the last day of the Budget debate, the Treasury has decided not to send a Minister-

Several hon. Members: rose -

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not indicated that he will give way. Members must contain themselves.

Kenneth Clarke: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh).

Edward Leigh: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that in our early years in Parliament Ministers were very courteous? They always made a point of trying to respond to points made even by Opposition Members. Regrettably in recent years that custom seems to have gone out of fashion. Perhaps the Chief Secretary is not here because he has no intention of winding up in a traditional way by responding to points made in the debate.

Kenneth Clarke: It could be that he is trying to think what to say, because there is not much in the Budget to talk about.

John Baron: Perhaps the Chief Secretary's absence could be explained by the fact that he is preparing the cuts.

Kenneth Clarke: He may be trying to prepare a rather clearer explanation of the cuts than has just been given by the Secretary of State. I welcome appearing opposite him-

Alex Salmond: I was with the Chief Secretary on Thursday night on Question Time, so perhaps I can give an alternative explanation. On that programme, he said that the cuts being proposed by this Government would go deeper and further than those made by Margaret Thatcher. Perhaps the Chief Secretary did not want to listen to the Secretary of State deny that point, or perhaps he is locked in a dialogue with the Chancellor to work out the position.

Kenneth Clarke: It is more likely that Charlie Whelan is trying to deal with the problem if there is some discrepancy in what the Chief Secretary says in public. I trust that the Secretary of State is playing no part in whatever is being done to re-educate the Chief Secretary. I normally have a very good relationship with the Secretary of State-we come from the same part of the world-and I would have been happy to go down memory lane and debate schools and education with him had I known that the Government intended to try to turn the last day of the Budget debate into such a debate.
	I knew that the Secretary of State would take part in the Budget debate, as he did last year. He often does, but that is because he thinks that he should take part in all Budget debates. I commiserate with the right hon. Gentleman on that front, because events have moved on even in the last week or two. He has concealed today what must be his deep and bitter disappointment, because he was beside himself with rage when he was not made Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. For some unknown reason, the Prime Minister has just announced that our current interim Chancellor might be reappointed in the unlikely event of the Government being re-elected.
	So, with patience, the right hon. Gentleman has to hold himself in exile at the Department for Children, Schools and Families, waiting for what he always believed would be his inheritance-to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that he is dying to deliver and explain the Budget, given that, I strongly suspect, he had quite a large input into it-as he has had a considerable input into economic policy ever since he first emerged in opposition as the acolyte of the Prime Minister. We all remember with wonder that amazing speech on neoclassical endogenous growth theory- [Interruption.] Post-neoclassical!

Edward Balls: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Kenneth Clarke: He should give it again; we are waiting for the finer details.

Edward Balls: It is important to set the record straight, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was actually post-neoclassical-not neoclassical-endogenous growth theory. The words in draft were written by me. I cut them from the speech, but then a figure more senior than me wrote in the margin, Put the theory back in! and that is how it ended up in the speech.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. As interesting and entertaining as this dialogue has been, it is important that we now return to the fourth day of the Budget debate.

Kenneth Clarke: I shall obey your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	It is difficult to get back to the Budget. We are debating the Budget-the last serious business of this Parliament before we break up-but it was not so much a Budget as a holding statement. In the middle of a serious economic crisis-certainly the gravest financial crisis that anybody can remember-the Chancellor delivered a Budget that was almost totally devoid of content, which certainly did not answer the only serious question, and which made no significant changes to tax, except for one or two that I shall touch upon.
	I cannot help commenting on something in passing: I heard the Children, Schools and Families Secretary say, when asked about tax, that he was not going to give any advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on tax levels-although the next time he mentioned it, he did at least say, in future. On behalf of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, I would like to ask for that in writing, in case it has not been recorded in  Hansard, because we know who was responsible for the national insurance increase. The Chancellor did not want to put it in his pre-Budget report; it was not the tax increase he had in mind at all. However, I shall return to that matter in a moment-it just seemed relevant. The Prime Minister and the Children, Schools and Families Secretary told the Chancellor that he could not have the pre-Budget report that he wanted. I suspect that, on this occasion, the Chancellor might have produced a serious Budget, and I strongly suspect that it was the Prime Minister and the would-be Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Children, Schools and Families Secretary, who prevented him from doing so and who gave us the holding statement that we heard.

Edward Balls: On the issue of whose advice was listened to over tax policy, a few days ago, on the question of reversing the rise in national insurance contributions, the shadow Business Secretary said:
	We will only know if we can afford it in the-
	first emergency-
	50-day Budget... The Budget is not just something you knock off for a TV programme.
	Does he think that the shadow Chancellor ignored his advice not to offer something on a TV programme without knowing whether it is affordable?

Kenneth Clarke: What emerged was the work of Sir Peter Gershon and Martin Read, and the question of how to pay for it was addressed. I have listened to the Secretary of State trying to explain how he will make his £500 million of savings from a budget that is not increasing in real terms-as shown by the forecast for the retail prices index in the Red Book-and I think that we have made it much clearer how we could afford to get rid of this appalling national insurance increase, for which he is in large part responsible. We have addressed the question-I was addressing it in the interview he quoted-of how to account for any changes, and we have explained how we would pay for them.
	There is a big, serious question-the one that we are debating and that we will resolve in our proceedings today: whether there is a credible plan for dealing with the nation's problems of a budget deficit and debt. We are having a very entertaining debate, but the dimensions of the problem that the Budget should be addressing, and which we need to address, should overwhelm everything that we do. On that question, the Budget turned out to be a mere holding statement-probably not the statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to give. I am afraid that he fell into some of the usual traps-the whole recession somehow came from overseas; it was nothing to do with here-and he tried to present as good news the fact that the deficit was going to be only £167 billion, which is just under 12 per cent. of GDP. The fact that the deficit was mildly smaller than his horrendous forecast is not good news.
	When it came to how the Chancellor would start to tackle his stated objective, there were optimistic forecasts, which I honestly do not believe are likely to be achieved. Everything is being disposed of on the basis that we are likely to get into a mini-boom from next year onwards and to sustain it, and that huge cuts could be made in infrastructure spending. I shall not keep arguing the past, but it was private finance initiatives that enabled the schools capital programme to take off; indeed, huge cuts in infrastructure spending have already been set out by the Government in the Red Book. The problem is that the ballpark figures were plucked from the air and kind of attributed to each and every Department. What the Children's Secretary illustrated was that an individual Department cannot give any meaningful description of how it is supposed to be making its contribution to eliminating the £11 billion of waste or making the £5 billion of lower priority spending cuts that were cheerily set out in the Budget speech and the Red Book.

Edward Balls: rose-

Kenneth Clarke: I will pause to give way in a moment.
	In the end, given such inadequate content, all it adds up to is a vague target of halving the budget over the course of the next Parliament. The debt-to-GDP ratio will rise to only 75 per cent. of GDP, on the Government's very optimistic forecast.
	Ever since the Government broke into heavy public spending and borrowing in 2000, when they stopped following the figures that I had laid down in 1997, public spending has been increasing by 4.3 per cent. on average each year. The Budget set out that it would reduce that to 0.4 per cent. each year; it gives no credible description of how on earth it is supposed to get there, and if it did that, it would still leave the deficit at 4 per cent. of GDP in 2014-15. That is above an acceptable level. As we heard from the Children's Secretary's agitated ramblings about the details of his budget, the Government have not the first inkling of how they are to get to what we regard is an inadequate position and not at all healthy public finances for a return to normal growth.

John Hayes: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the spending plans that the current Government inherited. Indeed, I mentioned in an intervention on the Secretary of State that growth was at its greatest under this Government during the period when the fiscal constraints that they inherited still applied. Is it my right hon. and learned Friend's view that a fiscal tightening, coupled with holding down tax, would be more likely to deliver the growth targets that the Government anticipate than their Budget, which will raise tax and not fiscally tighten in the way that most national and international experts recommend?

Kenneth Clarke: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, when the public are trying to make sense of what they probably regard as the confused arguments about tax, spending, borrowing and all the rest, they should recall two previous occasions when similar issues were posed. One was early in the Thatcher Government, when we also had a huge fiscal crisis. We went in for fiscal discipline and a tight monetary policy in order to get stability, and that produced growth. We were bitterly opposed by the Labour party, however. I took over during a comparatively minor fiscal crisis, albeit an important one: £50 billion was the annual deficit figure that frightened me when I became Chancellor of the Exchequer. I went in for fiscal discipline and a strict monetary policy, and I was fiercely opposed in terms that the Secretary of State still longingly recalls. He sometimes forgot that it was the Major Government, rather than the Thatcher Government, whom he was attacking. We were bitterly opposed.
	Now, we have the worst recession-the deepest and longest that we have ever had-and the worst fiscal problems that we have ever faced. We are proposing to tackle that with sensible, courageous fiscal policies while maintaining proper monetary policies. Labour Members call themselves neo-Keynesians, but they are actually the populist, short-term, vote-catching, easy-way-out people of so-called new Labour, and they are opposing the same approach being taken again, dressing it up and-with great respect-getting things rather confused.

Edward Balls: I only wish that I had had the chance to pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in my speech; I did not know that I would be facing him today. He was my first MP, and I think that he made some very wise decisions in his time as Chancellor. We have already established, however, that he was ignored on national insurance. Speaking of the time when he was Chancellor, he has also said:
	I got rid of the married couples allowance...This is social engineering, for God's sake, and when I joined the party we weren't in favour of it.
	Is he going to be ignored for a second time, on the married couples allowance, or might his view prevail? Might this uncosted, unfunded pledge to introduce an unfair marriage tax break be dropped by the Leader of the Opposition?

Kenneth Clarke: I am glad that my pre-Front Bench quotes are being so lovingly preserved by the right hon. Gentleman. We are committed to recognising marriage in the tax system. Those were my comments on the married couples allowance-and on why I abolished it-given at some seminar, I think, before I was exposed to the collective wisdom of my colleagues. But we must still wait to see how we are going to honour our commitment to recognise marriage in the tax system.

Edward Balls: The right hon. and learned Gentleman does himself a disservice in talking about the quotes being lovingly preserved. I was harking back to my experience in 1983 when he was my MP, but his quote about the marriage tax break was actually from December 2008. That is not an old quote; it is a very recent one. The question is will he be listened to, or will he be ignored yet again.

Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State has six pages of quotes. Can we hear them all at once, rather than one after another?  [ Laughter. ]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. May I remind all-

Edward Balls: rose-

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I please remind the House that a considerable number of Back Benchers are waiting to contribute to the debate? Their speeches will be time-limited, and I therefore ask for some consideration from other Members who are making their contributions.

Kenneth Clarke: I shall stop giving way for a time, Madam Deputy Speaker, to help with that.
	That quote was taken from an academic seminar at which I spoke before I was on the Front Bench. There were no doubt considered views of the same kind in my Budgets when I was addressing the same question- [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State keeps quoting-he has probably got a whole wad of quotes of me and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), the shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families-but I wish he would take more notice of what we say to him from the Dispatch Box and answer some of our questions. He should certainly take notice of my hon. Friend's education reforms.
	We are committed to recognising marriage in the tax system, and there are many ways of doing that-on which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will no doubt decide in due course.  [ Laughter. ] I shall go back to the serious question. I have made my point about the debt. I do not object to the House having a good-natured debate about the most grave situations-I am sure that there have been entertaining debates when the nation has gone to war-but the gravity of our economic situation should not be underestimated. The public are about to take part in the general election campaign-or, rather, to listen to it and then vote-and they realise that this is a very big question. They are frustrated by the difficulty of deciding about it.
	The real question is this: are we going to have the present economic and financial crisis resolved by the democratically elected Government of this country, or are we going to have our affairs decided by a collapse in the bond markets and a further collapse in sterling, which is already devalued on a trade-weighted basis by 25 per cent.-the greatest devaluation, I think, since the second world war.
	What frustrates the public looking at the major parties is the fact that although we are all agreed on the dimensions of the problem, the present Government are simply not prepared to face up to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, not just the Chief Secretary, acknowledged that cuts would have to be deeper and tougher than those under the Thatcher Government. I said that some weeks ago and the Chief Secretary appears to have repeated it. The only person who has difficulty repeating it is the Childrens Secretary, but it is a fact, not an opinion, that we are going to have to get into some extremely serious spending cuts. Whoever is elected will have to make those cuts.
	If by chance we were to re-elect a Government who did not have a credible plan and who did not have the political will to face up to the problem-if the present Government were re-elected, they would not do so-the process would have to be introduced by the International Monetary Fund. As happened before, we would have conditions imposed on us to restore our solvency in the eyes of the bond markets. That is the background against which the Government are not treating the House or the country properly and against which the Government have failed to produce a Budget that could be rationally debated as an approach to the crisis on the eve of an election.

Barry Sheerman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is known for his honesty, and I have known him for a very long time. He is talking about what the British public should know as we come to a general election. The truth is that both sides realise that there must be cuts, but would it not be suicidal for our economy if we started to cut public investment before private investment had recovered? That is the truth that the public know, and we should tell them.

Kenneth Clarke: No. This is the delay argument. We are supposed to be having a debate about whether we should start to act straight away or whether some economic virtue will allow the Government to go on without making any serious adjustments beyond the election and before recovery comes. I do not accept that. It is arguable, but it seems to me quite obvious that the reason why the Government are arguing for delay is that they have decided to fight the election on a rosy and complacent perspective, so the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been instructed not to address the long-term problem in the Budget. We have all seen the Prime Minister being persuaded only with great difficulty and very belatedly to recognise the need for any public spending cuts at all. It is a political tactic, not economic calculation, that is causing the delay.
	The Prime Minister is particularly fond of speaking as though the increased spending and increased borrowing from 2010 to 2011 is some sort of contrived fiscal stimulus or a plan. It is not a plan; it is the fag-end years of the Government in whom there has been no proper control of public spending, leading to a mismatch, now reaching £4 of spending for £3 of revenue, which is piling up the deficit. Yet that is described as a fiscal stimulus. We have no policy in place or in operation to stimulate the economy-apart from a scrappage scheme for boilers, which is not going to lift our economy very far. All that we have is a purely political refusal to face up to answering the questions before the election takes place.
	On efficiency savings, there are two elements to consider. Of course we must all make efficiency savings-those on both sides of the Chamber talk about them-and the public are extremely aware of the need to cut wasteful spending. We addressed the national insurance increase and identified areas where we were confident that we could avoid that particular tax increase- [Interruption.] It is no good saying, Come on, Ken.
	As for the national insurance increase, the moment it was announced I said what I have said throughout-I cannot remember whether I said it first in the House-namely that national insurance was the worst possible tax base for the Government to turn to if they wanted to raise revenue in a recession. It is a tax that should be avoided at a time when a Government are trying to nurture a weak economic recovery. It is not only an income tax on everyone in work, but-more important, in my opinion-a tax on jobs. It stops employers hiring new staff, and discourages them from retaining the staff whom they already have. It also puts pressure on their wage costs. The Federation of Small Businesses estimates that it would probably have cost 57,000 jobs had it been allowed to stand.

Sally Keeble: The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of delaying tactics. He has now been speaking for nearly half an hour without addressing himself to the real issue of the debate: the Budget, and in particular the education budget. The only proposal that he has come up with so far is not to increase national insurance contributions, which would add £6 billion to the deficit. What I want to hear, and what I am sure others want to hear, are his proposals relating specifically to the education budget and, in particular, the schools budget, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described as the biggest single unprotected budget that the Tories have.

Kenneth Clarke: That brings me to my next point. First, there are the efficiency savings, which have been debated a fair amount publicly in the last day or two. Secondly, we will have to move on to a public spending round. We will have to move on to addressing the programmes of individual Departments, and they will be addressed. The education Department is only one of them.
	I shall explain the problem to the Opposition in a moment, but as things stand-as I think has just been conceded-the education Department faces a real-terms cut in its current spending over the next few years. It is also down for £1 billion-worth of efficiency savings, but no one can adequately explain where they will come from. No one in most Departments can explain where the pencilled figures for efficiency savings are supposed to come from.

Edward Balls: rose-

Kenneth Clarke: I will give way to the Secretary of State for the last time. We are both taking up too much time.

Edward Balls: We are, but I want to make sure that we are absolutely clear about the position, and to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman time to explain his own position clearly.
	On 19 March, under the headline Cameron overrules Clarke on NICs, the  Financial Times quoted the right hon. and learned Gentleman as saying:
	We will only know if we can afford it
	-the national insurance freeze-
	in the [first emergency] 50-day budget.
	What has changed between then and now?

Kenneth Clarke: I do not know whether the Secretary of State does the research for the Prime Minister, who is also very fond of quoting me, but he has just used the same quotation twice.
	As I have just explained, I certainly agree that there should be no tax reductions, or abandoning of tax increases, unless it can be explained how they will be paid for. What I said was what I said, and what has happened since then is this: we have had the reports from Gershon and Reed, and we have settled down and studied them. We have worked out that of their £12 billion savings, £6 billion can certainly be secured. That can pay for what we have proposed. As I have just said, increases in national insurance are particularly disastrous.
	What a responsible Government should have tackled is the public spending programme for the next three years. They should have produced a review of the changes that were needed to address the deficit. That has not been done, and it is extremely difficult for an Opposition to do it. A strange background is provided to the debate by what I consider to have been the most cynical of all the decisions made by the Government in the last 12 months: the deliberate decision to put off a public spending round in the run-up to an election.
	According to the Government's own programme, there was supposed to be a full public spending round. That would have informed everyone's debate, and would have set out priorities properly. The excuse given for its postponement was pathetic: uncertainty. No one believes that. Everyone knows that it was postponed because the Government did not want to address any of these questions in the run-up to an election. That displays unforgiveable cynicism. We as the Opposition party keep getting pressed by exasperated journalists and members of the public to give details of what cuts we would make, but even when the information available to us is not complicated further by the explanations offered by the Childrens Secretary, but is set down on paper in English prose, it is not adequate to address that question. Similarly, Secretaries of State need to take advice from within their Department and negotiate with the Chief Secretary and his officials before they can draw up a possible programme. We need to have a public spending round, but this Government suspended that out of cynicism-out of pure electoral opportunism.

Edward Balls: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have any confidence in the £11 billion of savings we have said we can find, how can he have any confidence that he can find a further £6 billion of savings to pay for his national insurance freeze? He has just dug a very deep hole for himself. He has just explained why he was completely right a few weeks ago when he did not think this NICs tax freeze could be paid for. He has confirmed that now, which is why people know that what is actually going on here is a secret plan for an increase in VAT.

Kenneth Clarke: We have set out the five bases Gershon says we should pursue, but we have not allocated figures to individual Departments as we are not in a position to do so. However, the Children Secretary has, for his own reasons, tried to allocate figures, and he has allocated the £11 billion in such a way that nobody in any Department has the first idea of how they are supposed to produce these savings. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I say to him that to suggest that that is an adequate substitute for a public spending round is a pathetic response.
	We should have had a proper Budget. Not only would we then have had a better debate, but it would have been more challenging to both Opposition parties if the Chancellor of the Exchequer-who holds that office despite the Children Secretary's wishes-had been allowed to come to this House and say to us and the Liberals from the Dispatch Box, These are my tax plans and my spending plans for Departments over the next three years. Which of these tax changes are you going to vote against? Are they tough enough for you? Would you like them to be tougher? It would have been more challenging to the Opposition parties if he had said on the spending plans for Departments, How would shadow Ministers for spending Departments on your side of the House react to these plans? Are the Opposition parties going to settle for these plans, or are they going to toughen them up-or weaken them?
	If that had happened, we would have had a serious debate. The public would have been less disillusioned with politicians as a whole, we would have been put on the spot, and-who knows-we might have done what the then Leader of the Opposition and the then shadow Chancellor, who is the current Prime Minister, did in 1997: we might have said, We agree with your fiscal policy. We might have said what Blair and the current Prime Minister said then, on the advice of the current Childrens Secretary: we might have said, as they did after my Budget in 1997, We accept your spending plans, we accept your tax plans, and we are going to stick to them.
	The Government should have produced a proper Budget, but instead they have not produced any serious fiscal or spending plans. Optimistic growth forecasts, inchoate figures and a complete refusal to hold a public spending round is the only background to the practically content-free statement the Chancellor gave the other day.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Kenneth Clarke: I must move on now.
	As we have turned this into a business debate rather than an industry debate, I shall briefly touch on the implications for small businesses and the contribution made to this debate from afar by Lord Mandelson and his Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. What we should all be talking about is how to return to growth: what is the future for British enterprise, and how do we make this economy successful again? However, until we tackle the debt problem, we cannot do so; there will be no return to normal growth until we satisfactorily address the deficit and the debt problem.
	Let us consider the current prospects for businesses. We have no fiscal stimulus, and if this Government survive, business faces a national insurance increase. Business faces a considerable increase in business rates-I believe it will be £1 billion in the year about to start-and the small business corporation tax rate is increasing from 21 to 22 per cent. in April 2011. So the first thing that business faces is an increase in taxation.
	Obtaining credit is the big problem for small business, and that is holding back growth on a great scale. Lord Mandelson accepted as much with some vigour in a speech he made about the behaviour of the banks a few days ago. What is in the Budget to tackle this? What is pulled out of the hat on the eve of the election? The answer is a credit adjudicator service. Apparently, some sort of new tribunal will be resorted to by every business man who cannot get the credit he thinks he ought to get from his bank; there is to be an appeals system. A whole new profession of sub-lawyers and separate risk managers could be about to appear. The banks are to be determined by some tribunal, some official or perhaps some political adviser. When someone is worried about their credit, they will have to say how marginal their constituency is and whether the Labour candidate is a Blairite or a Brownite. That might have a very significant effect on someone's success when they appear before the credit adjudicator service. It was rightly ridiculed by Richard Lambert, and nobody has the first idea as to how it is meant to act as an answer to the credit problem.
	Lord Mandelson is trying to sell his whole Government on active government and interventionist government, but when he was last at the Department of Trade and Industry he did not take that view at all. Indeed, I often quote with approval one of the things he said when he first came into what is now the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. He was against the Government picking winners, saying that the history of this had usually been losers picking the Government. That is a very good description of the industrial strategies of the past. It was a very witty remark, with which I wholly agree.
	However, suddenly we find that active government means that there is a kind of slush fund of grants from various parts of government. They have been holding back various grants and financial approvals that they could have given in the past few months and are now releasing them in a sudden rush on the eve of the election. The allocation to the noble Lord's budget in BIS is a one-off £750 million, which he got as a kind of dowry when he turned up-he called it a strategic investment fund. What has happened, as the  Financial Times showed in some research a couple of days ago, is that no less than £7 billion-worth of grants or financial approvals have been given in the past week or two. This has been done by three Departments in particular-the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence and BIS-with the money to be spent on trams, trolley buses and defence contracts. Some of these grants to industrial enterprises are doubtless worth while, but this is happening all over the place; I advise anybody in a marginal seat who is looking for Government money to get in a bid quickly in the next few days.
	Let me discuss one of these grants. I shall not oppose it, because I do not know enough about it, and I shall go on to explain why I do not get up to oppose such grants. So let me give approval to one of Lord Mandelson's recent grants. Some £8 million has gone to the refurbishment of Blackpool tower; the iconic tower and Winter Gardens in Blackpool has suddenly got a grant.

David Gauke: Two marginal seats.

Kenneth Clarke: Heaven forfend. I like the tower and I always go there when I am in Blackpool. My party used to go there and I also have fond memories of it as a child. The tower is a national monument and £8 million is no doubt money well spent.  [Interruption.] I am being told that Blackpool has a Conservative council. Indeed it does, but it has two Labour seats, both of which used to be Conservative seats. This is, thus, a mere coincidence. One of my hon. Friends was unkind enough to mention that after a wait of all these years £8 million has gone to Blackpool tower. This is part of the £7 billion that is suddenly being disbursed. Where is the money coming from? It is being borrowed. Is it the Government's money? No, it is the taxpayer's money, which the Government hope that eventually some Chinese investor will help to finance. At the moment, the necessary bonds are presumably being printed by or bought by the Bank of England.  [Interruption.] The only person who Lord Mandelson ever consults on political tactics is the Children Secretary. They are the architects of new Labour, a movement that we all know is, in essence, a media management and party political campaigning organisation.
	Lord Mandelson would, of course, want to know whether or not I oppose each and every one of those grants. it. He knows perfectly well that if I say that I oppose a certain grant, that information will go to the relevant place and people will say, If you vote Conservative, there will be x million less in Barsetshire. People will say that there will be less of a grant for this or that, so I do not do that. I have a good reason for looking at those grants, some of which-the bigger, more substantial ones-I would probably approve of, but I have no access to the business plan. I am not able to ask any great, international company, Why are you not able to get this money from your normal sources? Why can't you go to the markets? I cannot say, Explain to me why the taxpayer must borrow this money to make a contribution, so I do not oppose the grants. When I used to shadow the old industrial strategy of Wilson and Callaghan, I did not oppose them all because I could never get enough information, but sometimes one could look at the political map and get a pretty good indication of why grants had been so surprisingly successful. It is cynical electioneering and the election must bring it to a satisfactory end.
	That grave problem is not addressed by the Budget, the background to which is appalling. The decline in manufacturing as a proportion of gross domestic product has been faster than at any time in our history. The most worrying manifestation of the crisis is the huge fall in the level of business investment. When business investment goes off a cliff at a faster rate than at any time since records began, which I think was in the 1960s, that tells us how near we are to the end, and, in reality, how likely we are to have growth. That is what happened in the second half of last year, and it tells us we are at risk.
	Labour caused the crisis in the first place. When the Prime Minister was the Chancellor, he contributed to the global crisis. It was not just Wall Street; it was also the City of London. It was a failure not just of regulators in New York, but of the Prime Minister's own regulatory system in London. Everyone outside the Anglo-Saxon world knows that Bush and Brown, when he was Chancellor, were two of the principal architects, by their negligence-two of the principal contributors-to the folly that we all suffered from because of the hubris of bankers.
	The Prime Minister lost control of public sector finances when he was the Chancellor. While he was bound, by his electoral pledge, to follow my policies and my figures until 2000, he was the Iron Chancellor, whose work was based on prudence. If only he had stuck to my rules-balance the Budget over the cycle; no more than 3 per cent. deficit on GDP; and limit debt to GDP ratio to 40 per cent.-all of which were hit and maintained when Labour stuck to my fiscal policy for its first three years of government. Thereafter, it went completely mad and ignored all the warnings.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) constantly claims that he foresaw the dangers. I think he would agree that when he and I spoke in Budget debates, we used to say the same things about the sea of debt that was piling up and the fact that the level of household debt, let alone Government debt, was unsustainable. We were treated as a couple of Jeremiahs who did not understand the modern economics that the current Prime Minister was taking such credit for. He gave knighthoods to successful bankers; he did not regulate them. And he did not doubt for one moment that he could sustain the whole thing on the basis of what was the most foolish and extraordinary bubble.
	I spent last night reading a very interesting book by Malcolm Balen about the South sea bubble. Although it is not quite so bad, this financial bubble is quite high up the league table. It is worse than the dotcom nonsense we had about 10 years ago, and is absolutely absurd. In this case, I do not believe for one moment that there is the slightest hint in the House of Commons of the corruption that was at the heart of the South sea bubble, but the sheer incompetence and the credulity of the worst Chancellor of the Exchequer we have had in modern times, and the iron control of the new Labour movement that made sure there was no real challenge until the crash came in 2008, is, to a certain extent, reminiscent of past financial scandals. The outcome should be that the Government pay the penalty. They have caused and contributed to the crisis and they currently have no answer to precisely how they will get us out of debt and deficit. They cannot seriously offer themselves for re-election.
	It appears that most former Cabinet Ministers are planning their future careers in various branches of private enterprise. Where legitimate, I wish them success in the private sector phase of their careers, although one or two have been going near the wind when it comes to what they are contemplating.
	I very much hope that most of them are thinking about what they can take up as an alternative to government for the next few years, as the British economy cannot possibly stand their return. This hopelessly inadequate Budget is the last sad epitaph to a history of failure.

Vincent Cable: I too came along this afternoon under the impression that this was to be an economic debate. I am pleased to see that the first detachment of cavalry from the Treasury has arrived, and maybe there are others to come.
	As this is the end of the Budget debate, many of the arguments have been aired already, either in the Chamber or outside. One useful aspect of coming in at the end of the debate is that we have a chance to compare the arguments that we are having here with what is happening in the real world in our constituencies, as I tried to do over the weekend.
	Essentially, our debate has centred on when cuts will be made, which the shadow Business Secretary characterised a few moments ago. Should we make them now? The Government view, which I broadly support, is that the economy is rather too fragile for us to embark on cuts at this stage, whereas the Conservatives tend to argue that the cuts should be made more rapidly. That is the debate that we are having: right or wrong, there are arguments on both sides, but I find it very difficult to reconcile that debate with what is happening on the ground.
	When I left Parliament last Thursday, my first port of call was a mass meeting of teachers and lecturers at my local further education college. The problem is that 70 front-line staff have been told they will be sacked over the Easter recess, and they do not understand why. The college is a top-quality, academic establishment for post-16 year olds., and the staff have been told that the Government attach enormous importance to post-16 education. As far as I know, there is no fault with the college, but people have been told that there are going to be cuts. Those cuts are happening now, and people will get their redundancy notices in a few weeks.
	I thought that that may be some kind of strange outlier that was not typical, but I went to the local university the following day and it too is grappling with a completely new set of budget numbers that will almost certainly mean very substantial cuts in student numbers and teachers. Then on Monday morning I had an opportunity to go to the National Physical Laboratory, which happens to be in my constituency. It is one of the country's leading science centres, and it is where Greenwich mean time is based.
	I spoke to a staff union meeting there, and again it appears that Lord Mandelson's Department has decided that this very productive corner of British science must have cuts. The Government have suggested that it generates £25 of benefit for UK plc for every £1 that it spends, but 40 or 50 members of staff have been given redundancy notices already and others are to follow.
	This is what is actually happening, in the real world. We are talking theoretically about making cuts now or later, but the environment in which some sectors of the economy are operating is one in which cuts are being made already. Coming back from that contact with the real world, I had a fresh look at the Budget in a bid to understand what is going on.
	When we read the Budget, we think it appears to have absolutely no impact on the economy at all. We are talking about a change in revenue worth about £1.5 billion, or one tenth of 1 per cent. of the economy. The fiscal changes in the Budget therefore have absolutely no effect on the economy at all, but the report published at the end of last week by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that 2010-11, the next financial year, will see a very big fiscal contraction of about 2.5 per cent. of GDP. That is because the fiscal stimulus that the Government supplied is being withdrawn, and it is also due to the big cuts in capital spending.
	Again, back in the real world, I was reminded of what that actually means. I was invited to one of the big rooms at Twickenham rugby stadium to speak to a group of roofing contractors-500 of them. They had various experiences, and many of them had had a tough time in the recession. They told me that all their business plans are being affected by the fact that the Government are drastically reducing capital spending. This is happening and it is affecting their businesses. That, combined with the severe contraction of credit from the banks, means that many of those companies are finding it extremely difficult to operate. The artificial debate around the Budget has little connection with the real world in which those companies work.

Angus MacNeil: On the point about the very real world, I notice that just before the Budget the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) was opposing fuel tax rises, but the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), the Liberal Democrat party leader, was in favour of them. What is the Liberal Democrat position, in the real world, on fuel taxes?

Vincent Cable: We want special provision for remote rural areas. If the Government were able to introduce a scheme of that kind, we would be happier with the fuel tax proposals. The hon. Gentleman will see how we vote on the matter tonight, but that is heavily coloured by the fact that we have had no provision for remote rural areas.

David Heathcoat-Amory: While the hon. Gentleman is clearing up confusions, what about this one? Last night on television, he said he wanted to bring down the budget deficit by, among other things, removing child benefit for high earners. That position was contradicted by the leader of his party earlier this month, when he said that the universality of child benefit would not be questioned by the Liberal Democrats. What is the position of the hon. Gentleman's party on this? Who speaks for the Liberal Democrats?

Vincent Cable: What I said, or what I thought I said, was that we would cut child tax credits for high earners. [Hon. Members: No!] Well, if I mispronounced it, then I mispronounced it.  [Interruption.] No, we are not talking about cutting child benefit; that is quite clear. We are talking about child tax credits. Let me be absolutely clear, and I apologise if I did mispronounce it, because the policy is unambiguous.
	Let me turn to the Budget pluses and minuses. There are pluses. First, the Chancellor clearly did not accept some of the demands that were being made of him to run a populist Budget. He restrained himself from that, which is a big contrast with earlier Budgets. I go back, for example, to 1992, when there was a similar situation. The economy was in difficulty and an election was coming. Large offerings were made, which had to be withdrawn a few months later. This Chancellor, to some credit, has desisted in that respect.
	The second, rather minor, positive is the fact that the Chancellor's news on economic borrowing was slightly less severe than it could have been, but that is a little like someone grappling with a very large overdraft discovering that their mobile phone bill is not quite as bad as they thought it would be. Still, it is good news.
	The other positive, though I say this slightly sardonically, is the fact that we have had an accurate description of what the fiscal problem actually is-the scale of it and the time scale over which it is due to be dealt with. However, that is a little like saying that the Chancellor has identified and acknowledged, probably for the first time, the fact that we have a very large elephant in the room; has carefully measured the elephant, telling us that in eight years' time it will become a mouse; and has suggested a time scale over which that contraction will occur, but without at any point explaining to us the biology by which that elephant will transform itself into a mouse. There was no discussion whatever of the what and the how of the fiscal contraction occurring.

Stewart Hosie: That is a very good point indeed, as was the description of the real cuts at the hon. Gentleman's university, his college and the National Physical Laboratory, but in all the national hustings I have done recently, the Liberal spokespeople have tended to use the same form of words, which is that they are on the same page as the Government with this. Is he backing those cuts; or if he has questions now about how we get from a huge deficit to a slightly less huge deficit, is he backing the process or will he give us something new today?

Vincent Cable: No, the criticism is not of the fact that there needs to be a tightening of budgets. Of course there has to be, although we have taken a view, which I have communicated publicly with the hon. Gentleman's party leader, about the emphasis on protecting the Government budget for next year. However, if cuts are to happen, it is important that they should be done openly, not under the radar. My criticism of what is happening in the FE sector, universities and science laboratories is that it is all happening by stealth. There is no discussion whatever of priorities. It is happening through civil servants and quangos. There is no acknowledgement of the fact that cuts are occurring or of how they should occur. That is my central criticism of what is happening at the moment.
	On timing, the hon. Gentleman well knows-we have had this communication already-that we broadly support the Government's view that it would be better not to embark on large additional cuts in the budget in the coming financial year, because the economy is fragile and that would aggravate the recession, creating even more unemployment. Arguably, it would make the fiscal deficit even worse. That is our position.
	Let me talk about the negatives-the worries-in the Budget. The first is the almost hopelessly optimistic assumption about the rapid return to growth in 2011. There is now a long list of independent forecasters in British industry and in the City, none of whom thinks it remotely likely that growth will approach the level that the Government assume. There is one exception: Goldman Sachs. The Bank of England is also at the upper end of the range, but the overwhelming majority of independent forecasters believe that the Government are far too optimistic.
	The second criticism is of how the Government intend to achieve some of the cuts when they come. We had the real Budget announced in press releases after the official statement in Parliament last Wednesday, in the form of these efficiency cuts. For the rest of the day, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), the shadow Chief Secretary, and I had quite an amusing series of exchanges, ridiculing those cuts. Neither of us is normally noted for mirth-we are often compared to undertakers-but we found this very funny, because the efficiency cuts had obviously been cobbled together and written on the back of an envelope. They did not amount to much at all.
	That made me all the more surprised yesterday when I discovered that my opposite number, the shadow Chancellor, had adopted all these fictitious cuts-efficiency savings-and used them as the basis for promising to repeal the national insurance increase. These efficiency savings-if we can have them, they are great, but on the one hand to ridicule them and on the other to use them as the basis for promised tax cuts has no credibility whatever.
	For the record, this is the approach that we have adopted. We are by no means able to explain, any more than anyone else, the full extent to which the fiscal contraction could occur, but we have identified £15 billion gross of savings, which we think we could achieve. We specified them. They are not efficiency savings. Any efficiency savings are above that. We have allocated some of that figure, £5 billion, to job creation in the short term and other spending priorities in the longer term, including the pupil premium, which would provide additional funding for schools. We recognise that there will have to be-especially in 2011-12 and beyond-some serious spending reductions over and above what we have identified.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman talks about the credibility of plans to cut spending and he has announced his £15 billion plan. Will he confirm something that he said last night during the television debate-that the £15 billion includes scrapping tranche 2 of the Eurofighter project? Perhaps he has seen a different contract from the one I have seen, but my understanding is that the cancellation charge for tranche 2 exceeds the cost of taking delivery of tranche 2. Can he explain to the House how he would make a saving there?

Vincent Cable: That is not the information that we have received. We have repeatedly checked our understanding of the charges involved in such a decision. There are two different components to the end of the Eurofighter contract, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We believe on the basis of what we have been told-of course, we are not told everything, because some of this is supposedly commercially confidential-and on the basis of our information that some savings could be made.
	Like the hon. Gentleman, however, we take the view that the bulk of the savings that will have to come from defence procurement-there will be a lot-must be considered through an overall review of our strategic objectives, provided that that takes place quickly in the early stages of the next Parliament.

Stewart Jackson: In the welcome spirit of mea culpa, will the hon. Gentleman share with the House the circumstances that led him to give a grovelling apology to the permanent secretary to of the Treasury for misrepresenting the involvement that he had in terms of a contribution from his Front Bench to that Department?

Vincent Cable: I gave no grovelling apology to the permanent secretary to the Treasury. I misrepresented nothing. I had a meeting with the permanent secretary to the Treasury, as indeed all Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen did. It was a perfectly routine meeting, and that was the way I represented it. People may choose to dramatise it in the context of discussion of hung Parliaments, but I have to say that that was wholly false. I have written no grovelling letter of apology. I have written him a friendly note, confirming what I had said and had not said, but no apology whatever was needed or has been given.

Edward Balls: May the confusion about tranches 1 and 2 of Eurofighter, and therefore the confusion about exactly what the level of spending and efficiency savings add up to, have been what the shadow Business Secretary had in mind when he said that one could pay for the reversal of the next increase only after the election? Is that the kind of confusion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to avoid, and was it wrong that he should be overruled by the shadow Chancellor?

Vincent Cable: I appreciate the Secretary of State coming to my rescue, but I do not think I need it. I have given an explanation that deals with the point.
	I conclude by referring to two issues of substance that arose in the Budget in relation to the banks and the banking system. One of the big and unexpected revenue changes was the yield from the bank bonus tax. I acknowledge that we underestimated it, as did the Government. We thought that the tax would be widely avoided and it was not. It suggests a certain degree of chutzpah among the bankers that they were perfectly happy to pay up rather than change their behaviour, but it leaves us with several conclusions that now need to be followed through but are not being followed through.
	The first is that the banks are perfectly capable of sustaining a permanent rather than a temporary tax in order to cover the insurance-the protection-that the banks derive from the taxpayer. The second is that it is clear that excess profits are being made in the banking system, particularly in the investment banking arms. I was delighted to see that the head of the Office of Fair Trading is now investigating the possibility of cartel, or other forms of anti-competitive behaviour, which are producing excessive profits from Government and possibly private client relationships, and which are the source of many of the bonuses that are currently paid. I would be interested to hear from the Minister when he replies whether the Government have prompted or are encouraging the OFT to pursue the investigation.

Oliver Heald: To clarify matters so that there is no misunderstanding, would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to publish the letter to the permanent secretary to the Treasury so that we can all see that the speculation was incorrect?

Vincent Cable: I sent the permanent secretary to the Treasury a handwritten note. His conversation with me was private, and it was a private note. I can assure the hon. Gentleman on the record that no apology was sought or given or was necessary. I did not misrepresent the meeting. It was a routine meeting between Front-Bench spokesmen of both our two parties. That was all that was involved.
	My final point concerns the bank lending practices for which the Government have responsibility in the semi-nationalised banks. We get very excited in these debates about the Government's fiscal objectives, but these are tiny by comparison with the significance of the amount of bank lending to the corporate sector. The Government are talking about targets of roughly £90 billion of business lending. My question is: should we believe them? We have had these targets before. They were legally binding. They were not met. We in all parties have experiences of large numbers of small and medium-sized companies either being unable to obtain credit or being offered credit on terms that are so onerous they cannot take them up. I ask the Minister when he replies to give a much clearer explanation than he has been able to do so far about how these bank lending targets will be achieved next time when they were not achieved before.

Liam Byrne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I apologise to you and to right hon. and hon. Members for missing the beginning of the debate? I was unavoidably detained on Treasury business, but I am very sorry for any discourtesy. None was intended.

Philip Hammond: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the convention of the House that an hon. Member who wishes to wind up a debate must have listened to that debate? Indeed, I am quite sure that on a previous occasion you have reminded me of that rule.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot recall the exact instance to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but obviously, as I think has been rehearsed already on points of order from his right hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), it is usual for the debate to have been heard for the winding up. But having said that, there are occasions when both Ministers and shadow Ministers are missing for parts of a debate. The Chief Secretary has apologised to the House and perhaps it would be better to save the time for further debate. It is now on the record.

Kenneth Clarke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to make a meal of this, but I do not think that we should just move off in that way. This is extremely unusual; indeed, no one can remember a Minister winding up who did not attend the first two hours of a debate. There are occasions when some untoward incident causes a Minister, or sometimes a shadow Minister, to miss a lot of a debate. The custom is to send a note to the other side urgently with the apology, which is always accepted, and no one makes a fuss about the absence of the Minister. Foreign affairs can be quite serious and be the reason that has taken the Minister away. That has not been done on this occasion. I do not think that it is adequate for a Minister to turn up and say that he has been busy in his Department and that departmental business has stopped him from coming, and have that accepted and carry on as though missing practically the first half of the debate is an unavoidable problem compared with the very important meetings that he has no doubt been having. We should at least establish a precedent. He is apologising now, but it really makes a farce if the Minister comes along when he can and answers which part of the debate he has listened to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not for one moment saying from the Chair that the situation today is in any way admirable. We have had an apology. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he does not want to make a meal of it, but we have now had three courses on this matter, and perhaps we should regard our appetite as fulfilled on this occasion. The Chief Secretary may feel moved to make further reference to it should he catch my eye at a later point.
	With regard to the time limit on speeches, once again, as yesterday, Mr. Speaker and the Deputy Speakers have been wrong-footed by events in their calculation, so I give notice that the 15-minute limit that has been imposed by Mr. Speaker will have to be adjusted down at some later point. However, I will try to maintain it for as long as looks credible.

David Blunkett: I will endeavour to take less than the 15 minutes, and I will also endeavour to help my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary by making reference to some of the comments that have already been made.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for speaking just before me, because the first two speeches in the debate were an entertaining exchange between the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and his former constituent, the Secretary of State, but the reality that we face this evening is to speak on behalf of those who do not have a voice. I therefore immediately want to take up a point that was made by the shadow Business Secretary about credit ratings in the bond market.
	It goes without saying that, in a global economy, we are subject to those who make decisions through credit-rating organisations and the bond markets, and if we take no notice and are not cognisant of the consequences, we will be severely damaged. However, in a democracy we have a number of elements in addition to the rule of law and a free media. We have political, participative and representative democracy that gives a voice to those who have power, wealth and privilege in the economic democracy-in the marketplace.
	This afternoon I have heard people blame this Government and our Prime Minister for a global meltdown-for what happened throughout the world-that was initiated not actually in the United States, but in the development of savings in China, because of the economic and social changes in that country. That led to the availability of credit and money in the United States, which inevitably led to the over-extension and meltdown. When I hear the Prime Minister blamed for that by a former Chancellor, I do not take it seriously. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe knows better than that. He knows perfectly well that this Government and country cannot be and are not responsible for what took place three years ago.
	Some of those who were responsible for the meltdown were, incidentally, engaged with credit-rating agencies and the bond markets, and it is the cheek of the devil for those people, who have wealth, power and privilege internationally, to say that it was the fault of political democracy for not regulating them toughly enough-to turn the tables on the politicians who are saving our economy, our services, our jobs and the livelihoods of our people and our communities and to say that we are to blame for not stopping them from doing what they did in the first place. That is just nonsense.

Brian Binley: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise the anger out there; that the Prime Minister, then the Chancellor, said to the Financial Services Authority that he wanted a light touch on all those matters; and that that contributed massively to our problems?

David Blunkett: The Opposition were the first to criticise us for being too tough on regulation. They preached year after year that this Government were too heavy-handed on regulation, and that business and finance wanted to be left alone. They preached what Margaret Thatcher preached, and now they intend to practise in the social arena what they preached in the economic arena-that Governments should get out of such business and leave private enterprise alone. They said that we would flourish if Governments did so, not that bankers if left alone would bring our country to its knees and then blame us for not intervening harshly enough to stop them from doing it. What nonsense is that?

Oliver Heald: Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that in 1998, when the current Prime Minister introduced that financial system of regulation, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) said that it would lead to trouble? And lead to trouble it has.

David Blunkett: Of course we introduced that system precisely because there was no financial regulation. We also made the Bank of England independent, so that it could make judgments and intervene independently-and of course the Opposition opposed that, too.
	The contradictions abound. We know that it is necessary to take care and time to determine what needs to be done. We know it, because one year ago we anticipated that in 2014-15 debt would be £100 million more than we now expect it to be. Even three months ago we thought that growth was just 0.1 per cent., and it turns out that growth is 0.3 percentage points higher than that, based on the recently announced readjustment. Indeed, we know that the growth that can be achieved, the changes that can be ascertained and the way in which we need to proceed are a moveable feast.
	Above all, we need to be clear about who carries the consequences for the decisions that we make. Of course, on the macro scale, we have to take into account the consequences of what is happening globally, but we, as political representatives and the only voice of most people in this country who do not have wealth and privilege, have to speak out about the consequences of too rapid a cutback, too rapid a disinvestment and too many cuts to front-line services.
	I heard the shadow Business Secretary say that his 1997 Budget was wonderful and that we stuck to it. Actually, we did not. I was the shadow Education and Employment Secretary from 1994, and in market towns throughout Britain in 1995 and 1996 I spoke to parents, teachers and children whose schools were falling apart-whose roofs were leaking. Primary schools were reliant on outside toilets, the teaching profession had totally collapsed and there were four-day weeks. There was under-recruitment, so teachers with no training had to be placed in the classroom; there were no teaching assistants; books were being recycled; and parents were being asked to pay for them.
	That was the reality, and in 1997 the July emergency Budget put £700 million more into the education service, and £1 billion of new deal money from the windfall levy, from which we also benefited in terms of the employment drive that got people back to work. We do not want to go back to the era that I have described: it would not be the shadow Chancellor; it would be more like John Osborne-look back in anger and see just what happened when the Conservatives put their friends before the electorate of the country's most disadvantaged constituencies, such as mine.

Brian Binley: Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the school improvement programme, much of which we benefited from in Northampton, was a direct result of the private finance initiative, which the then Chancellor said was the only game in town?

David Blunkett: It was not the only game in town, because, as I have just spelt out, we started in 1998 with £1 billion and the new deal for schools, which turned into Building Schools for the Future. That budget-just to get the figures right-was £600 million when I became Education and Employment Secretary; it is now £9 billion and is transforming the learning opportunities and environment of our children.
	The argument has been made that we should immediately start to reduce spending. However, one thing that concerns me, to which the hon. Member for Twickenham referred, is that many agencies-next steps agencies, Departments, primary care trusts and strategic health authorities-are already starting to cut in anticipation of even deeper cuts, should a Conservative Government be elected. Paradoxically, that is reducing the speed of growth by cutting back on spending that would keep people in jobs.
	Let us look at what happened in the past. We cannot live in it, and I shall not compare historical debt to the reduction in the structural debt, which in any case we intend to get down to 2.5 per cent. of GDP by 2014. However, let us presume that we are in 1951, and a Conservative Government have been elected not on an austerity programme, but on a programme of lifting rationing and bringing hope and aspiration to the 1950s. That is what they were elected on. They were elected on the back of the wartime lend-lease and debt, and the debt that Maynard Keynes negotiated in Washington in 1947, but they did not enter office promising that they would wipe out that massive, historic wartime and post-war debt by 1955, 1959 or 1964. In fact, it was paid off in 2002, and the Canadian bonds were paid off in 2007.
	We need a voice of reality saying that we in the political arena must take cognisance of the international financial arena and speak on behalf of the people who have no other voice. The issue is about continuity of spending; about retaining people in jobs, paying tax and national insurance; and about reducing the anticipated welfare spend-on which Margaret Thatcher did spend while cutting front-line services in my city and those throughout the country. Some of us remember it; some of us dealt with it. As the leader of Sheffield city council for seven years in the 1980s, I lived with it day after day, and none of us should want to go back to that. We do not need to; we can plan sensibly; we can be rational; and, above all, we can act as a counterweight to the voices of those who will not feel the cuts-who will be immune to what happens in education, health, transport, the environment and housing, because they can buy their way out of cuts.
	We speak on behalf of those who cannot do that, and that is why we should stick to our guns. We should be rational and thoughtful and careful. Above all, we should resist the siren voices of those who know what they are about, and who will vote in this election-they will vote for their own self-interest. That is not acceptable for Britain and it is not the future for our country.

Patrick Cormack: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). We all admire his commitment, his courage and what he has contributed to our country. I hope, though, that he will forgive me if I do not follow him in his loyal defence of the Government, for which he should be roundly thanked by those on his Front Bench.
	This is the last time that I will address the House of Commons, and I find it a strange experience almost exactly 40 years since I made my maiden speech. When I was talking to one of my former secretaries the other day about stepping down at the general election and about how I love this place, she said to me, Well, it's what you are. I have to say to colleagues on both sides of the House that for the past 40 years, it has been what I have been.
	I love the House of Commons in general and I love the Chamber in particular, and it always saddens me when people on either side of the House do not give it the respect that it deserves. Of course, one accepts that the apology by the Chief Secretary has been sincerely given. He is not a man who is unthinkingly impolite. In fact, he is a man who likes to make sure that all people know exactly what he wants, whether it is the strength of his coffee or the size of his seat. I would just say to him gently that he must not do this again, whether he is Chief Secretary, shadow Chief Secretary, or anything else. The primacy of the Chamber of the House of Commons when great issues are being debated must be respected by those who are winding up debates on either side of the House.
	I believe that what is so important at the moment is that people outside should begin to regain their confidence in this place. I would say to the fourth estate, which sometimes seems hell-bent on destroying the other three, that the House of Commons is the ultimate defender of all our liberties. Of the people I have known in this place over the past 40 years, the overwhelming majority of men and women, in whatever part of the House they have sat, have been true public servants who have come here for what they can put into it, and not for what they can get out of it. I hope that that will be recognised when the furore of recent months dies down.
	I came here with a sense of history, and I have had the great privilege of living through history. I shall never forget listening to the great orators of our time, particularly to the recently late great Michael Foot and the late great Enoch Powell, who were close personal friends-most people do not know that, but they were-and who disagreed on almost every subject but respected each other because each one was first, second and last a parliamentarian. I think that we should take an example from people like that.
	I very much hope that the new House of Commons, with many new Members in it, will collectively restore faith in this place. I also hope that the new individuals who come here will regard being here, as I always have, as the greatest honour and privilege that any British man or woman can ever have. I believe that it is an honour beyond compare. I hope that, whichever party forms the next Government, those who come here and sit on the Government side of the House-I hope that my party will be over there then-will not come here merely hoping to be driven around in a ministerial Mondeo, or whatever, but come here because they believe that membership of this place is the most important thing of all.
	When one makes a maiden speech, one is supposed to be non-controversial. I do not want to be particularly controversial today, because I have been here long enough to know that no party ever has the monopoly of wisdom, virtue, or any other quality, good or bad. I remember opposing policies of my own party, such as the poll tax-I will not go into a great list-and I know that we have made mistakes in the past. However, I say, against that background, that this is the least substantial Budget that I have ever known. It is skimpy, it is bare, and it does not address the nation's problems. At a time when interest on our debt is more than twice what total public expenditure was in 1970, it behoves us all to recognise the seriousness of our position. Incidentally, in 1970-you will remember this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you came here for the first time then, as well-one had dinner in the Members' Dining Room for eight and sixpence: something that would warm the cockles of Sir Ian Kennedy's heart.

Brooks Newmark: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Patrick Cormack: I would rather not, if my hon. Friend does not mind.
	I like to measure every Budget against two of my favourite political sayings. Benjamin Disraeli-I make no apology for being a devotee of the great man-once said that one of the great objects of our party was to elevate the condition of the people. Does this Budget give an opportunity to elevate the condition of the people? I fear that the answer has to be no. One of the most moving speeches that I heard in this place was made by John Nott-Sir John Nott, as he now is-in moving the Loyal Address. He said that the real poor of the 20th century are those without hope. Does this Budget bring hope? I fear that the answer, again, has to be no.
	Much has been made of the Prime Minister's great contribution as Chancellor. I do not believe that he was a great Chancellor. In the middle ages, people used to search for the philosopher's stone-the material that was going to turn base metal into gold. The Chancellor discovered how to turn gold into base metal: he sold it at bargain basement prices. Perhaps that is why he has always looked rather lugubrious ever since. I hope that at the general election, in spite of the dire condition of the nation's finances, we will have some fun and some spirited debating. I hope that the Prime Minister will be able to be a bit cheerful about it. He reminds me of a character from a programme of my childhood, ITMA-Mona Lott, who said it was being so cheerful as kept her going. That is what the Prime Minister looks like-as though it is being so cheerful as keeps him going. Well, the British people want some hope; some true optimism.
	The British people may live in a nation that is on the verge of bankruptcy, brought there largely by the feckless attitude of this Government, but they do not want a Budget that is bereft of vision, or a party that has run out of ideas to steer them through the next four or five difficult years. It will be all of that, because whichever Government come in must have the sustaining power to take us through not just the first Parliament but the second and beyond.
	There are many, many things that I shall miss about the House of Commons. There are some that I shall not miss. I shall not miss being here when people are serving on a Panel of Chairs. I am glad that your own current title will be preserved, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We could not have a Chair of Ways and Means-that would merely be a rocking chair, would it not? I will miss the camaraderie of this place and I will miss the cross-party friendships-some of the things that I have enjoyed most of all have involved Members of all parties.
	I shall miss very much my Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and I am delighted to see three Members from Northern Ireland, two of whom have served on that Committee, here this afternoon. We are able to demonstrate through our Select Committee system that people can put their party political interests to one side and work together for a common cause to produce reports that are not anodyne but are hard-hitting and deal with serious subjects, but which bring people together. That is an aspect of our work that it is not sufficiently understood and appreciated outside.
	The Select Committee system has developed very well, but what has declined has been the importance and centrality of this Chamber. As I prepare to leave it, I want to express the hope that those who come will not only regard being here as an enormous honour and privilege, as I said a few moments ago, but that they will want to inject some life into the Chamber. It is deeply disappointing that it is so sparsely populated this afternoon, although there are more here now than there have been on the other days of the Budget debate. It is tremendously important that they should recognise that to contribute in this Chamber, and to tread in the footsteps of those giants of old, is not only a privilege but a duty-a duty that they owe, and we all owe, to our constituents.
	I say to colleagues whom I am leaving a heartfelt thanks for their comradeship and friendship over the years. I say to those who are to come after that this is an imperfect institution, as every institution composed of human beings must inevitably be, but it is the bulwark of our liberties. It is the place that ought to matter most of all at the end of the day. When they come here, they should try to recognise that and rise to the occasion. They will be very well served by the staff of the House, and they will come to an institution to which they can feel proud to belong. I say to them that every day they should try to do what I have done and spend at least a minute or two walking through Westminster Hall, the most historic part of this great Palace, where so much of our history has taken place and which should give us all a sense of pride in being British.
	And so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to make these closing remarks. Ave atque vale.

Joan Walley: It falls to me, a girl from Biddulph in Staffordshire, to pay tribute to the public service that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) has shown over his 40 years here. From reading through  Hansard for the three previous days, it is clear to me that as well as having debates about the Budget itself, we have had valedictory contributions. Many Members are leaving and want to ensure that this place remains one in which what actually matters to our constituents is discussed and what we do really counts and makes a difference. That was the case with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) when he made £650 million available in a previous Budget. That meant that schools in Stoke-on-Trent that had not had any proper accommodation, never mind paint to improve it, had some money to rebuild. I refer particularly to Holden Lane high school. It became the first refurbished school in Stoke-on-Trent, which made a huge difference.
	I am pleased that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is in his place. It might come as no surprise to him that there is really only one reason for my being here for this debate, which will become clear shortly. It is important that he is here to listen to what Members of all parties have to say. I accept his apology and am very pleased that he is here now.
	I turn to what is in the Budget in general, and I have to say that it has a lot to commend it. Of course we are in the run-up to the general election, so it is different from Budgets in previous years, but as we try to come through the recession, the most important thing is that we do nothing to destabilise the recovery. The worst thing that could possibly happen would be to undermine the recovery that the Chancellor has embarked upon. I want to ensure that the House recognises what a difference the detail and small print of the Budget will make. I am thinking particularly about support for business growth and the 20,000 extra undergraduate places, which I know will make a difference. Education, education, education is the way out of the poverty and lack of hope that so many of our constituents find themselves in. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire will know, as I do, the importance of the work of our Staffordshire institutions, not least Staffordshire university, of which I am an honorary doctor.
	I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) will refer to the green investment bank and the provision in the Budget for green environmental technologies, as well as the importance of targeted support for households and individuals. Mention is also made in the Budget of the importance of regional government and regional Ministers, and it sets out the hope that if at all possible, Government offices, regional development agencies and parts of the Homes and Communities Agency will be relocated. To link in with the theme that is coming from the Department for Communities and Local Government, it sets out how we can have a Total Place response to ensuring that Government Departments work in a vertical way alongside local authorities so that their policies make a difference. There is enough in the Budget to help with that.
	It will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, if not to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say that there is really only one overriding reason why I should wish to speak in this afternoon's debate. It is simply to make the case for the Government relocating Departments to the city of Stoke-on-Trent and to the Potteries, where-I have to mention this-we shall celebrate on 1 April the centenary of the federation of the six pottery towns of Stoke-on-Trent: Tunstall, Burslem, Hanley, Fenton, Stoke and Longton. What subsequently became a city was formed simply because of the pottery manufacturers wanting a brand name so that they could trade their ceramics and tableware on the global stage. That was why the city of Stoke-on-Trent came about.
	It is no surprise that because there has been so much outsourcing, our traditional manufacturing industry-in not just ceramics, but all the associated manufacturing that goes with that-has suffered structural decline. That is not to say that some of our existing manufacturing businesses are not doing very well, and I am not talking down Stoke-on-Trent because we have huge opportunities, but structural challenges that existed before the recession remain. The important thing is to recognise what the Government and Parliament can do. That is why this Budget debate is so important to us.
	The recent reports from the Centre for Cities show that we have high numbers of jobseekers and that we have lost a large number of private sector jobs. For that reason, it is critical that the Government intend to build on the 2004 Michael Lyons report. They need to ensure that in addition to the 20,000 jobs that have already been allocated away from London and the south-east to other strategic areas around the country, they drive the agenda to ensure that the Ian R. Smith report that has come about as a result of the Budget-Relocation: transforming where and how government works-applies to Stoke-on-Trent. That is critical. That could provide the extra jobs that our city, in its centenary year of federation, actually needs.
	I want the Chief Secretary, when he comes to reply, to refer not only to the fact that I have come along to the Chamber tonight on the fourth day of the Budget debate to raise this matter, but to tell the House that my colleagues and I have been raising it consistently since the Lyons report came out. Perhaps we have not put a sound enough business case for Stoke-on-Trent, but we have had the intent and the objectives-in that I include the chamber of commerce and the North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership.
	We have been thwarted by how the Office of Government Commerce has looked at relocation. It says, Oh, we'll leave it to the heads of the civil service and let them decide which areas, which parts of the country and which regions will be best suited for those newly created jobs. I want that to change. I have read the detail of the Smith report, which we are debating as part of the fourth day of the Budget debate. It clearly states that the Government should show leadership and that there should be a way for Regional Ministers to come together. I want a Regional Minister who really makes the case for Stoke-on-Trent's needs-I know that our current Regional Minister does that.
	The proposals in the report also set out a new way of government and there is talk of seeing government in a new, integrated way. Perhaps given our desire for Parliament to connect better with the people whom we represent, we should propose to relocate Parliament to somewhere in the centre of the country-somewhere that has the most fantastic links, which this Government have provided along the west coast main line, so that we would have good access.
	The most important thing for me is that a further 15,000 jobs or so are going to be created. The Chief Secretary has said:
	Over the past few years, we have moved something like 24,000 jobs out of London and the south-east. Just before the pre-Budget report, we said that we would seek to move another 13,000 out over the next few years. I would be very happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and other colleagues from Stoke-on-Trent to talk about how we can maximise Stoke-on-Trent's chances of getting a big share of those new jobs.-[ Official Report, 15 December 2009; Vol. 502, c. 800.]
	I wanted to speak in this debate to ensure that after the election-I intend to be part of this House then-those talks can resume.

Ann Widdecombe: I am following my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) in that this will be my last speech in the House of Commons. Unlike him, I cannot claim a 40-year record-I have had a mere 23 years in this place-but I always imagined that when I was making my last speech and about to depart, I would be sad. Instead, I find that my uppermost sentiment is one of profound relief. I sincerely hope that future generations of Members of this House will be able to serve in an atmosphere free of the welter of public vituperation and vilification that this Parliament has been confronted with, and that there will once again be a recognition on the part of the public that the overwhelming majority of people who come here-on both sides of the House and in all parties-do so with some degree, and sometimes quite a lot, of sacrifice, in terms of either finance or family. My hope for the future is that some calmness and some respect will again prevail.
	Whereas my hon. Friend came here with a sense of history, I came here with a sense of the future. My maiden speech was on Trident. Of course, at that time, I was very much in favour of keeping Trident, and those on these Opposition Benches, which were then occupied by the Labour party, were very much opposed to that. I am delighted that they have seen the error of their ways, and that they now in fact see the merits of Trident. That gives me great hope. They also now see the merits of privatisation, so I am very hopeful that at some stage in the future, they will see sense on a great many other things as well, and that a far more sensible and down-to-earth approach will prevail among them.
	However, my main hope was that we would have a smaller state and a larger individual. My other main hopes, to which I shall address the main body of my remarks-I took this for granted at the time, but now I do not-were that we would have a stable society, in which the family was the bedrock, respected and supported by Governments of whatever party, and that citizens could feel safe and live decently, regardless of the income that they had at their disposal, and regardless of where they were obliged to live in this country. I want to direct the rest of my remarks in this Budget debate to measures that I feel are still desperately needed, and that would go some way towards securing those objectives.
	I turn first of all to the family. If in our time there has been an assault on any great institution, it has been not on the House of Commons, but on the family. I am talking about the record levels of family break-up and the record numbers of young children who are growing up in houses where the parents have split, who are expected to split their time, emotions and whereabouts between those parents. But for all the many families like that, there are plenty of other parents who stay together in a committed and subsisting marriage, and who wish to bring their children up in a stable environment. I therefore wish to draw particular attention to the plight-and it is a plight-of the non-working mother.
	When a family decides that upon the birth of the first child, the mother-it may sometimes be the father, but statistically it is usually the mother-will stay at home to take on the full-time duty of bringing up that child, they are faced with moving almost overnight, from being two people living on two incomes, to being three people living on one income. Where that family is well off, that is not such a big issue, but for the majority of families that model, which many would like to follow, is now but a distant aspiration. There are many reasons for that, and it has not been helped by the prevailing social view that somehow there is something intrinsically second class about the woman who opts voluntarily to stay at home and bring up her children.
	While I have been in this place, I am pleased to say that I have lost three secretaries to full-time motherhood-I am not pleased that I lost them, but pleased for the reason that I lost them. The most recent said to me that she spends all her time trying to justify to her friends and contemporaries why she had chosen not to come back to work when the child was born.
	The social attitudes do not help, but there are also massive financial considerations. As a result of property prices and the huge mortgages that are necessary, it is simply impossible in many families for one of the parents to say that they will stop earning. Therefore, every shred of help that we can give to such families should be given by the Government of the day. It is especially iniquitous that there should be such a difference between the support given to a family where the mother has decided on full-time motherhood-which is the highest calling, because those mothers are bringing up the citizens of tomorrow-and to families where the parents have decided to carry on working. This example is given by Peter Saunders, professor of sociology, who points out that
	if both parents go out to work and put their children into childcare, the government gives them each a £6,035 tax-free allowance, as well as heavily subsidising their child care costs. But if they prefer to look after their children themselves, sacrificing one income and foregoing all the child care subsidies, the government penalises them by making the stay-at-home parent forfeit her (or his) right to a tax-free income.
	That is one of the most scandalous inequalities that we have.
	We not only fail to support the non-working wife, but we positively pour support on those people who are existing on two incomes rather than one. Much of that inequality stems from the decline in the respect for marriage that we used to take for granted in our society. That is one of the groups of people about whom I wished to talk about today-the non-working mother. I see nothing in this Budget to help the non-working mother, but I see much in some of the Conservative proposals that might help the non-working mother if they are fully implemented. In any case, the Government are wrong to have ignored this problem, and in the wind-up I would like to hear what the Government will do-in the limited time available to them-to give some support to the non-working, stay-at-home, full-time mother.
	The other group are those about whom I have spoken in this House before, and whom I have always called the forgotten decents. These are the law-abiding decent citizens, often but not always families-perhaps pensioners, a couple whose family has grown up and gone or single persons-who, because of a lack of resources, cannot escape from the environment in which they are trapped. I refer particularly, but not exclusively, to those big inner-city council estates where people have no aspiration but living a normal, unmolested life. That does not seem to be a ridiculous aspiration for a British citizen. But those people often do not dare even to leave their houses or flats after dark-not only after 8 or 9 pm, but even 6 or 7 pm-because they would be subjected to intimidation, robbery and thuggery. They live with that prevailing fear.
	Mothers who live on such estates have told me, and continue to tell me, as nothing much appears to have changed, that before they let their children out to play-which should be a normal activity-they have to check the surrounding area for needles. It is in those areas where the law-abiding live behind bars, because they fortify their homes like Fort Knox. There is wanton vandalism on those big estates and I vividly remember talking to one person who was disabled and had therefore no choice but to live on the ground floor. He could not live any higher: he had to occupy the ground floor. He had a pathetic, small patch in front of his flat where he had put pot plants to try to make a pleasant area in which to sit out in his wheelchair. Is that such a big aspiration? But his garden was regularly vandalised and finally every last plant was destroyed when some yob threw acid all over them.
	Are those areas policed? Is there a regular police presence on which those ordinary and modest British citizens can call? The answer is no. The regular plaint goes up, We rarely-they do not say never, because that would be an exaggeration-see a policeman. There is no visible deterrent walking around these streets in the form of someone who could be called on by those who feel afraid. Money spent on policing those areas or bringing any other sort of hope to those areas would be money well spent. I do not see much encouragement for those people-the forgotten decents-in this Budget. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that in the wind-up, the Minister will be able to point to measures that have been taken, but I have deliberately chosen in this, my last speech, just two groups of ordinary, decent people-full-time mothers who just want to be able to afford to bring their kids up and not feel compelled to go out to work, and those who live in terrible areas and cannot get out of them, where every agency shrugs and they are abandoned by those whose job it is to look after them. Ultimately, that job is the Government's.

Frank Dobson: Subject to the views of the electorate of Holborn and St. Pancras, it is not my intention not to be here after the general election, but I wish to pay tribute to the two veteran Members whom we have just heard. However, I will not attempt to follow them because I welcome the Budget statement and the Government's and the Chancellor's refusal to listen to the siren voices who demand cuts before the recovery from the recession is well under way. My view is that we will need to be fairly careful about cuts in public spending and public investment even when the recovery is well under way. The definition of a recession, in many ways, is that the economy is working below its maximum, and the best way to deal with deficits, debts and practically every imaginable problem is to get that economy back to working at its maximum as soon as possible. Slashing investment stifles growth; it does not encourage it.
	I was not surprised-but it was saddening-to hear the shadow Business Secretary harking back to the days of Mrs. Thatcher, on the basis that, if it is not hurting, it is not working. He gave the impression that her policies of slashing public services promoted economic growth, but nothing could be further from the truth. Average annual economic growth under Mrs. Thatcher was lower than the average under the preceding Wilson and Callaghan Governments. Things went down, not up, as a result of those policies. We also had massive inflation during that time. The lowest inflation under Mrs. Thatcher in a year was 3.4 per cent., and it averaged 7 per cent. It was all kept afloat with takings from the North sea and privatisation, and that money was squandered: it was not invested in industry-there was not a British sovereign investment fund-research or training. However, some of the decisions that the Chancellor has made in the Budget mean that there will be investment in industry, research and even more in training.
	We must remember that the biggest beneficiaries of the economic policies of the Thatcher Government were the finance industry and the speculators-the speculators who have been ruining the world economy for donkey's years now, whipping up and down the world price of oil and gas. There can be no rational justification for the price of a barrel of oil falling from $140 to $80 in the space of a fortnight-that is speculation and nothing else. There was also speculation in the price of wheat and rice. When I was in Bangladesh, I asked a rice farmer whether the price he was paid for his rice had quadrupled in the previous year, but he had not seen a penny of that. Price changes took place partly on the American markets. There are also the speculators in currencies.
	The changes and relaxations introduced under Mrs. Thatcher contributed to-I do not say that they brought it about-the banking crisis, and the banking crisis has undoubtedly caused most of the deficit, directly as a result of the taxpayer having to provide bail-out funds to some of the banks that were going broke and to give guarantees to others to prevent them from going broke. The banking crisis has indirectly caused the recession, and the recession has caused the fall in output and tax take and led to more benefits being paid out. We do not need to stop investing; we need more investment to counter the downturn and to get back to maximising output. When someone loses their job, we all lose out: we lose the goods or services that they were producing, the tax that they would have paid had they been employed and then there are the benefits that we have to pay out to keep them and their families going. As I understand it, it averages at least £12,000 a year to keep someone out of work-so keeping people out of work adds to the deficit.
	The Government's measures have been working. The jobless total is fewer than the wiseacres were predicting; the number of houses repossessed is lower than the level predicted by the wiseacres in the City; and there has been an element of recovery. It has to be said that Britain has led the way. I know it is a commonplace to mock the Prime Minister, but I put more faith in the words of Paul Krugman, who won the Nobel prize for economics for his study of recessions and knows what he is talking about. In response to what the Prime Minister did in the year running up to the G20 summit in London, Krugman said that the Prime Minister had acted with stunning speed, and had
	defined the character of the worldwide rescue effort, with other wealthy nations playing catch-up,
	and that he and the Chancellor had displayed a
	combination of clarity and decisiveness
	that had not
	been matched by any other Western government.
	So when some trivial tripehound from the City comes on the Today programme or one of the other BBC or ITV programmes, I would stick with Krugman.
	The Government should not be pushed off course by economists led, for instance, by Howard Davies of the London School of Economics. When the Government nationalised Northern Rock, he gave us the benefit of his view that it would undermine the reputation and standing of the City of London in the eyes of the finance industries in other parts of the world. Get real, Howard! The City and Wall Street have been hoist by their own petard. What they were doing has blown up in their faces.
	Let us consider Lehman Brothers, whose auditor was Ernst and Young. Then we are faced with the output of the Ernst and Young ITEM Club, and we are expected to take notice of the predictions and are told that we need to recognise what wonderful people they are. Well, Ernst and Young was an item with Lehman Brothers in the other sense-they formed a couple that could not have been closer as they covered up for one another. And they, of course, were assisted by the noble Linklaters, the City solicitors, which actually provided cover here-cover that even some of the dodgy lawyers on Wall Street had refused to give-for what Lehman Brothers was doing worldwide.
	These bankers, their auditors and the ratings agencies caused the banking crisis, and these self-same people are now demanding cuts in investment, while insisting that their bonus culture continue. Bankers apparently need mega-pay and bonuses to compete internationally, but everybody else has to take lower pay and worse working terms and conditions to compete globally. Who are these bankers and auditors and what is their track record? I have checked. Next time someone from KPMG gives us advice on finance, remember that it was supposed to be HBOS's and Bradford  Bingley's auditor. Next time Deloitte sends someone to give advice, remember that it was the auditor for the Royal Bank of Scotland-and a cracking good job it did! PricewaterhouseCoopers was the auditor of Northern Rock, and I have already mentioned Ernst and Young, which allegedly was the auditor of Lehman Brothers.
	Let us consider the banks themselves. The shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in a previous debate, quoted the wisdom of somebody from the City Group, but it lost $55 billion. It bought up-or got into bed with-Merrill Lynch, which lost $51 billion. We might get someone from UBS telling us what we ought to be doing about our public services, but it only lost $44 billion. HSBC lost $27 billion; the Royal Bank of Scotland lost $15 billion; and Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan both lost $14 billion, yet we are expected to take notice of them.
	Then there are the ratings agencies. They gave triple-A ratings to all the rubbish that brought the international banking system to its knees, and now we have got to listen to them. Are they seriously saying that they believe that a United Kingdom Government would default on their borrowing? If they are not saying that, there is no reason at all why the British Government should have any difficulty getting their bonds on to the market. We have got to take an altogether more rigorous approach. We have got to reach a situation in which the banking industry is working for the rest of us. We can no longer continue with a situation in which the rest of us are working for the worldwide banking industry. We need a yet more radical response than we have had. We have got to end the fail-safe arrangements for the dodgy dealers. There should be no more bailing out of the people who got us into this mess.
	I am genuinely fearful that unless we do something about the problem, the democratic institutions that we subscribe to will be in danger. If the people think that their elected representatives cannot protect them from what is happening in this world, while another group of people are still being paid multiples of millions of pounds in bonuses, I do not think that they will tolerate it. They will turn their attentions to those who say, We can do away with this. If I were running the British National party, I would be delighted with the present situation, with bankers lining their pockets and handbags, and teachers, nurses and firefighters being told that their meagre pensions pose a problem for the economy. Those teachers, nurses, firefighters and others did not get it wrong, but they are being expected to pay the price. The bankers undoubtedly did get it wrong. They are not going to have to pay the price; they are claiming the right still to be paid bonuses. Such a society will not be easy to sustain. Indeed, I think that there will be a threat to our democracy and to this institution unless we do something to change the balance and provide greater protection to ordinary people against the people who speculated us into the mess that we are in now.
	I welcome the Budget and the fact that we have not fallen for the silly idea of cutting investment before the recovery is well under way. However, we shall have to be careful about making cuts even when the recovery is well under way. We need the economy working at maximum output. That is the best way to deal with the deficit, debt and nearly every other problem that this country is afflicted with.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), although I cannot accept his prescription for growth, which consisted of little more than more public expenditure-or investment, as he called it-which is what got us into this trouble in the first place. His criticism of auditors had some traction, but they had far less to do with the problem than the failings of the tripartite system of banking regulation, which was set up by the Bank of England Act 1998, and which spectacularly failed when the banking crisis occurred.
	I am also pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), both of whom made fine valedictory speeches. We will miss them both in the next Parliament, which I hope to be part of. We will long remember their speeches, particularly the sense of history and tradition brought by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, which was a hallmark of his years here, and the passionate defence that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald made of the family and her support for it. She will long be remembered for those causes as well.
	It is a shattering commentary on the Government and their Budget that borrowing this year will be only £167 billion, which is slightly less than the £178 billion predicted by the Chancellor last year. Whatever figure is right, we are now in the premier league for debt, which will dominate the next Parliament and probably the one after it. We are entering a decade of debt, and even on the Government's own figures, the national debt will rise during the next Parliament to £1.4 trillion. A trillion sounds a lot, and it is. That is perhaps best illustrated this way. If we were to repay debt at £1 a second, we would repay £1 million of debt after 12 days. It would take much longer to repay £1 billion. At the same rate of repayment, it would take 32 years to repay £1 billion. To repay £1 trillion at the rate of £1 a second would take 32,000 years, and that is just £1 trillion, because the Government are increasing the debt to nearly £1.5 trillion. The task before us is therefore truly awesome. There is also an intergenerational problem and a question of fairness. Are we really going to hand on to our children a debt that we have incurred? It is already the case that a baby born in Britain today arrives with a debt around its neck. That is not a sure start; it is a debt start, and it is up to us- [ Interruption. ]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but there is a three-way conversation going on from a sedentary position that is now starting to disturb the debate.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Jeremy Browne: The reason for our noises off was that if 1 million seconds last for 12 days and 1,000 million is 1 billion, we are confused about whether 1 billion seconds would last for 32 years, which is certainly more than 1,000 times 12 days. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is defining a billion as 1 million million, but that is not the definition that the Government use when calculating borrowing.

David Heathcoat-Amory: No, but the hon. Gentleman had better check his arithmetic. I have done mine, and it is the case that on the Government's own figures it would take 32 years to repay £1 billion and 32,000 years to repay £1 trillion. I do not expect the Treasury to understand those figures, and I am a little disappointed in the hon. Gentleman from the Liberal Democrats, although I am perfectly certain that those on the Conservative Front Bench will understand them.

Brooks Newmark: It would perhaps be much easier for anyone listening to this debate to understand that £1.4 trillion of debt, which is roughly what we will be left with, approximates to about £46,000 of debt for every individual in this country by 2014.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that illustration. I think that we can all agree that we are talking about a pretty big debt, and there are only three ways of bringing it down: tax, raising the national growth rate, or cutting expenditure. There are no other ways of doing it, and I want to say a word on each.
	If the solution was taxation, we would have solved all our problems many years ago. It is a hallmark of this Government that their solution to every problem is tax and spend. That is the only consistent economic policy that I can detect from the Treasury Bench. In fact, the Chancellor is the perhaps unwitting originator of the phrase stealth tax. When I was shadow Chief Secretary in 1997, the present Chancellor sat opposite me as Chief Secretary. I read up some of his old speeches. They were pretty heavy going, but I spotted that he had criticised taxation by stealth. I started to use the phrase and it came into common currency. We can therefore say that the Chancellor conceived the phrase. I might have been the midwife and given it currency, but we can definitely agree that the present Chancellor is the prime practitioner of stealth taxation, and there are plenty more examples in last week's Budget.
	I should like to dwell for a moment on a non-stealth tax: the increase in cider duty was at least declared in the Budget speech. I come from the west country, where cider making is an important local industry. It is an environmentally benign, indigenous industry, and an important employer, but it is now being subjected to a vindictive and quite unnecessary 13 per cent. tax rise that will do great damage, particularly as the industry relies on long-term planning. Cider makers plant orchards, or persuade farmers to do so, and sign contracts with the people who buy the fruit. The industry needs to be able to plan, and for the Government suddenly to announce this vicious tax rise shows that they do not understand the second component of deficit reduction, which is raising the level of economic growth. Indeed, the Government's own so-called deficit reduction plan depends crucially on the growth targets that were declared in the Budget, which I do not believe; I think that they are too optimistic.
	The Government's entire political philosophy-let alone their economic philosophy-is founded on their belief in tax and spend. That in turn depends on their mistaken belief that, in their 13 years in office, they have discovered a philosopher's stone of continuous, low-inflationary growth on which they can permanently depend. Well, the credit crunch happened, and that belief was cruelly exposed. The real foundations for economic growth have nothing to do with Government expenditure: growth depends on the supply-side reforms at the level of the firm that were pushed through in the face of relentless opposition during the 1980s and 1990s. Those reforms secured a competitive advantage for this country in world markets.
	I cannot overstate the challenge that this country faces, in the face of pitiless international competition. There is only one way to get out of this mess. It is not to spend our way out, or to borrow our way out; it is to earn our way out. That will critically depend on the national growth rate, which has been eroded over 13 years of extra taxes, of tax complexity, of a benefit system that no one understands, and of over-regulation. There is not the slightest indication that the Government understand that, or that they have learned from those mistakes. They do not understand issues of competitiveness, risk or commerce.
	As we read the Budget documents and listen to the Chancellor speak, we are taken back to the 1970s with all his talk of state growth funds, innovation units and a green bank. Why do the Government want to own another bank? They already own great sections of the British banking industry. Now they want to own a new one, but it will be no more successful than the discredited regional venture capital funds. They were the target of well-merited criticism by the National Audit Office, which showed that their investments are worth only a fraction of what they cost.
	I hope that my colleagues on the Front Bench will summon up the determination completely to abolish the regional development agencies. They are run by people who do not understand business. They give out loans and grants to the most vociferous, rather than to the most economically deserving. The one in the south-west is a byword for incompetence and waste.
	My message is that we must concentrate on micro-economics and on getting the conditions on the ground right for business, industry and enterprise to flourish. That is not easy. The easy part of politics is spending other people's money. As Milton Friedman told us, there are only two kinds of money in the world: your money and my money. The easiest thing for me to do is to spend your money. We need to get back to attention to detail, and away from this blundering interference by central Government and all their agencies, with their mania for regulation and taxes as a solution to our problems.
	The third pillar of recovery involves tackling public expenditure. The challenge there is not to make new, exaggerated claims about cutting this and that, but to show that announced reductions can really be made. I am afraid that we shall have to go well beyond that old favourite, efficiency savings. I have sat through and participated in 27 Budgets, some as a junior Minister, and I have heard references to efficiency savings in all of them. Of course they are important, but I am afraid that we shall need to go much further. We need to re-engineer government. Quite simply, we need to run official Britain at a lower cost, and that is going to require creativity, determination and flair. I see those qualities among those on my Front Bench, and I believe that they can do it, but it will not be easy, and it will require a change. Those on the Government Front Bench have not the slightest interest in this, nor do they have the talent for it.
	I should like to talk briefly about pensions. They are the submerged whale of the problem. They are submerged because they appear on no Government balance sheet. I have asked Ministers about this at questions. According to many independent estimates, the scale of the public deficit on pensions is more than £1 trillion. Tackling that will also require great courage and determination.
	I must also mention the EU budget, as I think is expected of me in these debates. It is a disgrace that our net contributions next year will rise to the new figure of £1.6 billion. There is no interest in restraint or economy in the European Union; I know that because I sit on the European Scrutiny Committee and we see a weekly blizzard of proposals for new regulations, laws and spending. Now they want an economic Government in the European Union. That, too, has to be tackled. It will be difficult, because there is no easy or legal way of challenging it-certainly not according to my Committee.
	Next year's EU budget is going to go up again. My Committee advises that the social policy agenda is going up by 21 per cent., and that the already enormous structural funds are going up by nearly 7 per cent. The decentralised agencies are the European quangos, and they are even less accountable than the ones we deal with. I wonder whether the House can guess by how much the expenditure on those agencies is going to go up next year. The answer is 53.3 per cent. We are in the middle of a European recession. If national Governments are having to make cuts, why cannot the European Union play its part? It is because it has a dynamic to spend taxpayers' money, and there is no countervailing force to oppose it. There is also no willingness on the Government Benches even to challenge it.
	All these problems need to be tackled, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire said, we need hope. It can be done. We have faced such problems before, as a country. This is not a counsel of despair because we can overcome these problems. That cannot be done, however, by a Government who spend now, tax later and leave the debt to be dealt with later still.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, for two reasons. The first is that I want to support his comments about cider, and particularly about the long-term planning that needs to go into ensuring that the right apples are produced for cider manufacture. The second is that I want to apologise to him. Having had a bit more time to do my mental arithmetic, I realise that 1 billion seconds will indeed last for 32 years. I hope that our earlier conversation was not too misleading and to be able to use that impressive statistic myself at some point.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We have heard a few apologies in the Chamber this afternoon, and I accept his. Perhaps he has been taking arithmetic lessons from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who is now sitting next to him. I can promise him-and he must now agree-that a £1 trillion debt would take 32,000 years to repay, at £1 a second. I can assure him that these are not American billions or Labour billions but British billions.
	I shall end in the spirit in which I came in: this is going to be difficult, but it is possible. What is absolutely certain is that it will require a change of Government. This Government's time is up, and the date in question is 6 May.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. To deal with much smaller numbers than those we have just heard about, after the next two speeches-one from each side of the House-the time limit on Back-Bencher speeches will come down to 12 minutes.

Michael Meacher: This has been an evening of memorable valedictory speeches, so I do not think we should let this moment pass without paying tribute to two Members-the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)-who are leaving. However often and however much I have disagreed with them, I have always regarded them both as great parliamentarians who have spoken with sincerity and integrity and, as illustrated here again tonight, with a sense of values and principles in which they passionately believe. I believe that they have set an example to all of us. I also agree with what they both said about the need for a new Parliament after the election that is very different from this quarrelsome and vituperative one that we have had-one that can earn the respect of the electorate because we represent the democratic centrality of Parliament. I think that both those Members will be greatly missed.
	I will be brief-I will probably not use my 15 minutes-and I want to concentrate on the general structure and strategy of the Budget. I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on, once again, showing how adept he is at playing a difficult hand well. He has navigated a sensitive balance between preventing a double-dip recession, not endangering the recovery, keeping the financial markets on side and at least beginning to reverse some of the more grotesque inequalities that, in my view, so badly mar the face of Britain today.
	Having said that, I remain concerned about the proposed strategy for reducing the deficit, particularly the relative weight allotted to higher taxes, public spending cuts and higher economic growth in achieving that objective. The Treasury has proposed tax increases of £19 billion and public spending cuts of £38 billion. If the deficit of £167 billion is to be halved within four years-reducing it to £83 billion-that must mean economic growth yielding something in the order of £26 billion.
	I think that the first of those objectives on tax is readily achievable. At last it is being accepted that the burden of tax should rest much more on the shoulders of those who have made disproportionately huge gains in the last decade or two, not least on the shoulders of those responsible for the slump in the first place. The 50 per cent. top tax rate, the bonus tax on bankers, the loss of personal allowances, the freezing of inheritance thresholds and the mansion stamp duty tax will not have any effect on roughly 95 per cent. of the population. In fact, they will very largely be directed at the super-rich 1 per cent.
	Frankly, I think it absurd for the Tory press to scream as they have over this last week that this is an attack on hard-working middle and high earners. Who do they think middle Britain actually are? The medium income in Britain today is £22,000, while one third of the population subsists on less than £15,000 a year-a fact that we in this Chamber ought never to forget. The term middle Britain roughly applies to those earning between £15,000 and £30,000 a year, whereas the Budget increases will affect hardly anyone earning less than £70,000 a year. This is not spite; it is, at last, the beginnings of a switch back to some semblance of fairness. For that, I praise my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

John Hayes: I am an admirer of the right hon. Gentleman and I share some of his views about the redistribution of advantages in society. Nevertheless, freezing tax thresholds and increasing national insurance could not by any measure be described as the most progressive ways of enforcing tax increases in line with his ambitions.

Michael Meacher: I was referring to the tax increases in this Budget, whereas the hon. Gentleman is referring to the increase in insurance, which was signalled by the Chancellor in the previous Budget. I agree, of course, that that applies across the board. My point is that most of the additions in this Budget are concentrated, with a degree of equity that we have not seen before, on those who can afford to pay for them.
	As I was about to say, my only concern is why the Chancellor did not go further. Why are the 50 per cent. tax rate and the bankers' bonus taxes just a temporary one-off? Why are they not being made permanent? Why not take the cap off national insurance and make the well-off pay exactly the same proportion as the rest of the population? Why not end the loophole whereby City insiders redefine their income as capital gains so that they pay merely 18 per cent. capital gains tax rather than 40 per cent. income tax, which has made the City of London a virtual tax haven? Taking the lead from the Prime Minister, why do we not bring in a highly popular Robin Hood transaction tax on the banks, as other countries have done, without waiting for an international consensus? Yes, it would be better with such a consensus, but it can certainly be done effectively without it. If all those eminently reasonable proposals were pursued, the balance between tax increases for those who can well afford them and public expenditure cuts that hurt everyone else and begin to undermine the very core of our society could be substantially redressed.
	One of the paradoxes-it has already come out in our debate-is that all three parties seem to be saying, with varying degrees of panache, that the coming round of spending cuts will be more swingeing than under Margaret Thatcher. Some parties say it with relish-the Tories will always grab at a chance to shrink the state-but the Labour party is very different in that respect. It might regard the cuts as a necessary pain to be endured, but if that is the party's view I would question it on two grounds.
	First, if the Government are anywhere near accurate in their growth forecasts-1 to 1.5 per cent. this year; and 3 to 3.5 per cent. in the succeeding two years-the need for massive destabilising cuts is hugely reduced. If the Government are right in their predictions for the two years 2011 and 2012, gross national product will increase by about £100 billion, of which the Government's take would be roughly £40 billion. That alone would go a long way towards closing the deficit, thus significantly reducing the need for spending cuts.
	I would be the first to express the doubt-other hon. Members might have the same view-that Government forecasts might well be unduly optimistic, but even if growth were only 2 per cent. a year, which I think is eminently plausible for those two years in a recovery, Government revenues would still increase by nearly £30 billion, which would make for a major shrinking of the deficit, greatly reducing the need for highly damaging cuts.
	There is a second point, however. This is the one part of the Budget with which I take issue. In his statement, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said:
	We will not go back to the interventionism of the past, but nor can we return to the hands-off approach of the free-marketeers.-[ Official Report, 24 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 261.]
	Of course no one wants a reversion to overall state planning, but the idea that the private sector is, or should be, exclusively the engine of growth, or that it is the sole or main generator of efficiency, is a Thatcherite canard that should be dispensed with rapidly, because there is simply no evidence to justify it.
	It cannot be asserted too often or too strongly that the present recession was caused by the dramatic collapse of private investment before the autumn of 2008. Between the preceding year and the succeeding year, there was a cataclysmic collapse in private investment amounting to, I believe, more than 35 per cent. That was hugely aggravated by the reckless excesses-again-of private banking, and the consequences of those excesses. I must tell Ministers that we have as yet been given no commitment, or even a hint, of the establishment of a committee of inquiry or royal commission to look into the causes of what happened and recommend ways of preventing it from happening again, which I believe is urgently needed.
	What I think is called for now is a partnership-I am not referring to interventionism-between the public and private sectors, in which at times of deep recession the public sector would take the lead. Private investment will not improve until the prospects of profitability improve substantially. Merely titillating the private sector with a range of tingling but rather small incentives-which is what the Budget does, because my right hon. Friend's room for manoeuvre was extremely small-will not generate the necessary scale of recovery within anything like the time scale that is required for a Government to deal with the still very high level of unemployment. Let us never forget that 2.5 million people remain jobless.

John Hayes: rose-

Michael Meacher: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman for the second time.

John Hayes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is arguable that, as he is asserting, in an ordinary economic cycle with consequent ordinary economic conditions, a case could be made for increased public borrowing to offset private saving, but this is not an ordinary saving. The deficit is structural, not cyclical, to an unprecedented degree. I therefore suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's argument does not hold water, although he and I may have a romantic affection for it.

Michael Meacher: Of course I take the hon. Gentleman's point. There is a significant structural deficit as well as the cyclical deficit. Whichever form of deficit we are considering, however, what the market wants is not the cutting of the deficit per se, but the prospect of the economy's being pushed strongly towards a course of growth that will reduce the deficit more quickly and more effectively than any other measure.
	I think that the role of the public sector is important in that context, especially given the depth of the recession. I do not say this to be aggravating, but it is factually clear that the private sector will never be prepared to make the first move without the support of-indeed, a strong, vigorous lead from-the public sector. I believe that the one serious omission from the Budget is the omission of any systematic action by Government to promote public sector jobs programmes in certain sectors. The decline in house building has been greater than any in the last 80 years-1.8 million households, 12,000 of them in my constituency, are stranded on the waiting list-and there has also been a decline in infrastructure improvement. We are talking not about make work jobs, but about jobs that are desperately needed in our society at present. I believe that there is broad agreement on the need to drive forward the new green, digital economy. That must be done if we are to reduce unemployment by 1 million in two years, thus swinging the economy out of budget-dependent joblessness into job-providing growth yielding higher revenues for the Treasury in the form of income tax, national insurance and VAT.
	Let me give credit where it is due: the Government have moved a considerable distance from the market triumphalism of the last three decades. Sadly, however, they are still stuck in Thatcher market mode, in which it is considered only appropriate for the private sector to take the lead. That is an absurd economic prejudice and, in my view, a serious mistake which this Government, once re-elected, should rapidly correct-thus giving a much better grounding to what could otherwise be described as a Budget that has been skilfully balanced in unprecedentedly difficult circumstances.

Alex Salmond: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). As he probably knows, I would always have voted for him in internal Labour party elections if only I had had a vote in those contests. I agree with much of what he said, and I shall return to it shortly.
	I have been taking part in Budget debates in this Chamber for 23 years. I know that that is a mere smidgen of time compared with the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), but it is a fair spell none the less. I warmly congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not on the direction of his Budget and still less on its content but certainly on its timing. He is one of the few Chancellors in recent times-over those 23 years-who have resisted the temptation to hold Budgets in the middle of the Cheltenham National Hunt festival. For that, and that alone, I am profoundly grateful, together with many other people in the country, and in that spirit of generosity I warmly congratulate him.
	I said that I had participated in 23 Budget debates, but that is not entirely true. During the first, I was unfortunately and, of course, entirely unjustly suspended from the Chamber by a narrow vote of 354 to 19. It was, obviously, a close-run thing. Any of the 354 who are present now-certainly the hon. Member for South Staffordshire-will recognise the error of their ways. Checking the record today, however, I noted that one of the 19 was the Minister for Children, Young People and Families, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo). I do not forget these things. Let me assure the right hon. Lady that if-perish the thought-the Portillo effect were to overcome her in the coming election, a warm ministerial welcome would await her north of the border. However, I am sure that no such unfortunate circumstance will befall her in the coming campaign.
	The Chief Secretary to the Treasury was unfortunate to miss the start of the debate today. Had he been present, he would have been treated to a fascinating vignette featuring the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families-the next Chancellor but one-and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the shadow Business Secretary, who were discussing whether the cuts proposed by the Government would indeed be deeper and tougher than those made by Margaret Thatcher. I do not think there is much doubt about the Chancellor's view. I have consulted Nick Robinson's Newslog, which has clearly overtaken  Hansard as the main record of such matters. Last Thursday's edition reads as follows:
	I asked Alistair Darling to spell out how tough spending cuts could be:
	Robinson: 'The Treasury's own figures suggest deeper, tougher than Thatcher's-do you accept that?'
	Darling: 'They will be deeper and tougher'.
	As far as the Chancellor was concerned, that seemed to be a pretty direct answer to a direct question, but as far as the Secretary of State was concerned earlier in today's debate, that was not the position as he understood it-initially, I thought, just for his Department, but it then emerged that, as he understood it, it was not the position for the entire Government. We went through a range of possible explanations, one of which was incredible. The Schools Secretary actually suggested that Margaret Thatcher had not been engaged in cutting education funding in real terms. I think he should tell Baron Hattersley, who on 12 July 1988 said that the then Prime Minister was planning massive cuts in education spending. Clearly, however, the passing of time has altered the Schools Secretary's memory of such occasions. Perhaps he was not advising Baron Hattersley at that particular time.

Edward Leigh: I cannot help but ask the right hon. Gentleman this question: would he prefer to have a Labour or a Conservative Chancellor after the next election?

Alex Salmond: Although I concede it may not be the likeliest circumstance to arise from the campaign and election, with balanced Parliaments a possibility, perhaps the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie) will be taking up that role-or I understand that it might be the sainted presence on the Liberal Benches, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). Unfortunately, it will not be my old friend the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) since he, tragically in my view, has decided to forsake the House just when it needs him most to step in to that role. Any of these people, however, would be infinitely preferable to Tweedledum or Tweedledee, whom we might well get.
	Enough of this frippery, however; let us move on to the substance-if I can find it-of the Budget. When Members make their final speech in the House, it is traditional for them to refer back to their maiden speech-after all, it often contains the best lines we ever deliver here. In my maiden speech, I said-and I meant it-that my constituency of Banff and Buchan has
	robust characters who work with their hands and get their faces dirty. They are involved in producing, making and catching things. They are people engaged in the manufacturing and primary sectors who are the real creators of wealth. If Government policy was orientated more to the primary and manufacturing sectors of industry, rather than to the rentier economy produced by the Conservative party, the long-term health and welfare of this country would be better served.-[ Official Report, 29 June 1987; Vol. 118, c. 321.]
	I believed that then and I believe it now, and I am astonished that the process over recent years has managed to make the rentier economy of Thatcher's Britain of the 1980s look like small beer, because it is clear that this Prime Minister, who once claimed to have abolished boom and bust, had pinned the foundations of that in a totally unsustainable fashion, and now we have landed in the largest bust since the great depression.
	When I was elected as a Member of Parliament back in 1987, the public sector's net worth-the value of public assets minus liabilities-stood at 74 per cent. of national income. By 1997, it had fallen to 15 per cent., and if we are to believe the forecasts in the Red Book-I should stress that if-in 2014-15 it will reach minus 5 per cent., which is the lowest level since records began. I suppose that boom and bust was abolished, therefore: certainly the boom bit has been abolished, and we have been left with the bust.
	What I cannot understand in this process is that in the equivalent debate last year, when I suggested that the detail of the Red Book would, indeed, show that there would be greater cuts than those of Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s, there was a huge amount of irritation from those on the Labour Benches. Now, however, the Chancellor-if not the Schools Secretary-admits that, and when the Chief Secretary appeared on Question Time last Thursday night with me, he immediately confirmed the Chancellor's view when that direct question was put to him. This is a serious situation.
	I argued in the debate 12 months ago that until there is enough strength in the private sector, it is vital that fiscal stimulus is maintained. I am not alone in arguing that case. It is not only the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton who agrees, but so too does the International Monetary Fund. We can both quote it in our favour, although that is not something we have done regularly over the years. None the less, the IMF argues that
	one of the key lessons from experiences of similar crises is that a premature withdrawal of policy stimulus can be very costly, particularly if the financial system is weak.
	We believed that that was the Prime Minister's position for much of the last year with his warnings that recklessly and rapidly withdrawing Government support would
	risk driving our economy back into recession.
	Also, the Chancellor argued in his Budget statement of this year:
	To start cutting now risks derailing the recovery.-[ Official Report, 24 March 2010; Vol. 508, c. 235.]
	Therefore, just as I looked at the Red Book last year and identified a trend of public spending cuts greater than that of Margaret Thatcher in the early 1980s, chart 2.5 of this year's Red Book clearly shows that the UK's fiscal stance for 2010-11 is negative. Discretionary fiscal policy will act to tighten public spending and taxation relative to 2009-10. One analyst states that
	despite all the warnings about withdrawal
	of
	support too early, the fiscal stance is being tightened in 2010/11 by 1.1 per cent. of GDP.

Ken Purchase: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that although the Chancellor's remarks may be seized upon and used for great merriment or other purposes, the truth of the matter is that during the years of the Thatcher curse we were not cutting away fat or meat; we were sawing at bones? Given that there has been a fourfold increase in vital services since Labour came to power, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that however deep the cuts, they will never match the damage done by the cuts under Thatcher?

Alex Salmond: I advise the hon. Gentleman to look again at the projections in the Red Book, because if they are followed through they will wipe out all the expenditure and public spending gains in the previous 13 years. Although I do not want just to reiterate this single quote from the Chancellor, which will hang around Labour's neck in the coming campaign like an albatross, please let us remember that the Chancellor did not only say that the cuts would be deeper; he also said that they would be tougher, by which he presumably meant he was going to cut deeply where no one had cut before.
	That is the wrong approach. Among the G20 nations, only Argentina and the UK stand apart in choosing to provide no further fiscal stimulus. That might have been justifiable if the rate of recovery had exceeded the Chancellor's predictions, but that is not the case. The Red Book revised the growth forecast for coming years downwards, not upwards, yet despite that the fiscal response remains roughly as it was in the 2008 pre-Budget report.
	With the honourable exception of the previous two speakers from the Labour Benches, especially the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton, our debate has centred on how deeply the cuts in public spending must slice and how quickly they must happen. Therefore, it is right and proper that a different approach is suggested. I believe that the best way forward is to grow the economy out of recession for the very reasons the right hon. Gentleman spelled out: growth in the economy is the single greatest determinant of closing a budget deficit, just as a reduction-a loss of capacity in the economy, such as the 6 per cent. we have lost over the past two years-is the dominating and overwhelming reason for the £167 billion public sector deficit. The fiscal stimulus is not the cause of this record borrowing, therefore. The stimulus we have had over the last year is one of the reasons why the borrowing has not been even greater and why the economy has not gone totally off a cliff over the last 12 months. Therefore, it is all the more puzzling that the Red Book does not contain a stimulus for this year.
	In the introduction to today's debate we were treated to a discussion of economic history from the shadow Business Secretary and the Schools Secretary. I was reminded that Denis Healey said that Margaret Thatcher had given us sado-monetarism, but, of course, Joe Stiglitz has called the stance of this Government fiscal fetishism whereby
	cutting back means the economy goes into a downturn and the markets lose even more confidence, triggering another recession or depression.
	We should learn the lessons of other countries' experiences. In the 1990s, the Japanese Government's debt was 65 per cent. of GDP. Following a prolonged economic downturn and slowdown, they withdrew fiscal support too soon, and that debt is now approaching 200 per cent. of GDP.
	There is a strong case for a directed capital acceleration or fiscal stimulus this coming year to do the very thing to which the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton drew our attention: getting the economy moving into a growth cycle, which would have more effect than anything else in reducing the budget deficit. We cannot cut our way out of a recession, but we could cut our way into a double-dip recession. Yet the Red Book proposes no further fiscal stimulus, so that is precisely what those on the Treasury Bench are proposing.
	These are difficult times for public finances and it is proper that we identify not only general efficiency savings, as the other parties have done, but projects that could be cut altogether and rendered null and void, thus saving the country billions of pounds. I am thinking of the £100 billion over the next generation that is proposed to be spent on Trident missiles. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who is leaving the House, said that one of her great delights during her time in this place was seeing both parties move to support the Trident missile. Let me forecast that both Labour and the Tories will have to move in the opposite direction over the next few years, because the missile system is now not only totally unjustifiable and immoral, but totally unaffordable under any sensible projection of the UK's finances.
	As we ditch the Trident system, so let us ditch the remnants of the identity cards system, the underground repository for nuclear waste and, as the climax of this identifiable cuts agenda, which contrasts with the vagueness of the efficiency savings proposed by the Government and the Opposition, we could abolish an entire Government Department in the form of the Scotland Office in Dover house. That would save only £10 million, but I am sure that when the Conservative party looks into its innermost soul it will acknowledge that it has always wanted to abolish an entire Department and will see the sense and logic of getting rid of the Scotland Office, which has managed to overrun its budget by 15 per cent. over the past year. That has been done under the nose of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
	I have enjoyed and relished this Chamber for all of my 23 years here. The rest of the Palace of Westminster I can take or leave, but this is a fantastic Chamber and a fantastic place for debate to be joined. It has a great atmosphere and at its best it is second only to the Scottish parliamentary Chamber, which looks better on telly. None the less, this is a fine place to have enjoyed debating. I have met and clashed with a number of formidable debaters and speakers from both sides of the House, and I have enjoyed every minute of doing that. I wish well the individual Members-if not necessarily their parties. However, I should say that what has happened over the past 23 years has strengthened my absolute conviction that the case for our having full determination over Scotland's finances and resources has never been more urgent and has never required to be better made than it is now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I remind the House that there is now a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches?

Ken Purchase: It is an interesting experience following the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who is known for his rapier wit. I shall resist the almost irresistible temptation to joust with him this evening, because I would not want to have to make a round condemnation of nationalism in any form. I, of course, wish him well in his future role in the Scottish Parliament. It would not have been my personal choice to have a Parliament in Scotland. Birmingham and its surroundings has a larger population than Scotland in any case, so if there is to be a Parliament in Scotland, there should, thus, certainly be a Parliament in the west midlands-but I think that we should resist that temptation too.
	I welcome this Budget, not because I think it is scintillating or that it will transform people's lives but because this 14th Labour Budget was smart. It picked up on a little of the Belize debate, by bringing about a new tax regime. It was also smart in its use of changes in stamp duty. The Budget was sensible, because the windfalls afforded to us by lower unemployment than was expected and by the bigger take from the banking bonuses have been used to reassure the international markets, rather than to have a spending spree just before a general election. I believe that that is understood by the British public and will be appreciated.
	The Budget is also well crafted. After almost every Labour Budget the Conservative press have done their best to disaggregate it, to take it apart and to ensure that nobody can feel that we have had a good Budget. We have had 14 very good Budgets, but this one was particularly well crafted and it has been extremely difficult to take it apart in the usual manner. Those 14 Budgets have meant cumulative benefits to my constituents which I do not think would have accrued from a continuation of Conservative policies. Pensioner credits, child credits, heating allowances, and Sure Start and children's centres make an extraordinary difference to the quality of life of people in my constituency, as does the minimum wage.
	I do not think that the minimum wage is a substitute for vigorous trade union action. There can never be a better guarantee of good working conditions paid for at a proper rate than vigorous, strong and well supported trade unions. The minimum wage is a simple mechanism that, in the absence of strong trade unions, has produced a sensible outcome for people who were being paid a miserable pittance, of whom there were many in my constituency. I am thinking, in particular, of younger people in that regard. Younger people in my constituency were being paid as little as a pound an hour for working in a petrol station, and if there were any deficiencies at the end of the evening, they were expected to make those up. The minimum wage has been a very helpful development for my constituents.
	Waiting times have reduced dramatically in the health service. We have four times as many consultants in my local hospital as there were previously. We also have the health teams to back them up: the nurses; the technicians; the maintenance workers on the estate; and the hotel service workers who deal with laundry, the food and the cleaning services, which are so vital to us. The massive improvements in waiting times have made such a difference to so many people. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who gave an excellent speech, and I appreciate the support that he has given to the hospital that Wolverhampton shares with his constituency. This Government have done a terrific job in improving the quality of people's health, in ensuring better budgetary control, on the quality of treatment and, above all, on providing people with very much better service through these improved waiting times.
	On education, considerable increases have, again, been made in staffing and we have brought new technology into classrooms. We said, Education, education, education, but just as importantly the then Prime Minister promised that every child would have access to a computer. Who believed that that would happen? Now, every school that one visits has been re-equipped and equipped again with the latest technology to assist pupils in learning. That has been a tremendous achievement.
	My disappointment, which I cannot cover up, is that we have spent far too much time on structures, new missions, reorganisations and this idea of choice-it is a myth really. I am sorry to say that until there is a 10 to 15 per cent. surplus of places, the idea of parental choice is nonsense. I wish that Labour Front Benchers had recognised right from the start that the Labour mantra Every school a good school was the right one for socialists to pursue. Despite the great increase in expenditure, which was most welcome, and other wonderful achievements, the obsession with form, content and reorganisation has been a missed opportunity.
	On council housing, Labour has a great record on refurbishment, but why have we not been building? Why, in Wolverhampton, do we have as big a waiting list for council houses as we had in the 1970s when we were trying, and succeeding, to build council houses? If the health service is Labour's greatest legacy to date, the greatest legacy that we could produce for public health is the provision of well-maintained council housing for people who need it.
	I want to discuss manufacturing, which is at the heart of my constituency. Throughout the post-war years, almost 70 per cent. of the people in my constituency were involved in manufacturing either directly or indirectly, but that percentage has fallen dramatically. From the '80s onwards, there were terrific job losses, which continued through later years. But modernisation has come, and productivity has been massively increased by the efforts of workers and managers pulling together to ensure that the best technology is available and that there is investment. Perhaps other hon. Members will, like me, recall visiting factories in their constituency where they would be likely to see a machine that had been pulled off the sea bed after the first world war, which some poor sod-excuse me, Mr. Deputy Speaker-had to operate. Now, old engineers like me can barely understand the technology that is being used to improve productivity in our factories.
	I welcome the approach that we have taken to boost apprenticeships, which are the lifeblood of engineering and our prosperity. I pay tribute to the aerospace industry in my constituency for continuing to take on apprentices through all the bad years. Goodrich-formerly known as Lucas, and as Hobsons before that-has continued to take boys and girls into apprenticeships year on year, and that is paying off. It is doing extremely well and is taking on more people. We must grasp the new opportunities that improvements in manufacturing can bring in international markets, but such opportunities must be tempered by the recognition that all trade from now on must be fair trade that recognises the rights of workers here and internationally. It must be ethical.
	The mention of ethics makes me recall my friend and fellow socialist Robin Cook, whose tragic death has left a lacuna at the heart of Labour politics. He is sorely missed. He was my friend for 20 years, and I still miss him now, and I believe that the House also misses him. He was a great parliamentarian. He was the Leader of the House and the Foreign Secretary, but he will be remembered for his brave and intelligent attempts to bring reform. He warned us what would happen in relation to freedom of information, and we ignored what he said to our present-day cost.
	It remains for me to say something about this Parliament-the tribune of the people. Again, I agree with my colleague the hon. Member for South Staffordshire. This is the tribune of the people, but the fourth estate continues to criticise, undermine and damage, almost certainly at the expense of the vitality of our democracy, and we find ourselves in positions that we have to defend when we should be getting on with the business here. A free and vigorous press is a necessary, but insufficient, part of our democracy. Above all, it needs to become rhetoric-light and hyperbole-light. It should try to produce reports that reflect the reality, rather than producing some of the diabolical reporting that we have had the misfortune of seeing.
	As I leave this place, I thank the many people here who have treated me with kindness and fairness. The staff have been terrific. I thank the people of Wolverhampton who elected me four times, even though they once failed to do so, which was a terrible thing to do, and I thank the Labour party for choosing me to stand for it. Most of all, I thank my wife, without whose support and love I could not have done what I have done. This year, we celebrate 50 years of marriage. I leave this place a happy man.

Tim Boswell: First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase)? I have always found him to be an authentic and tremendous voice for the manufacturing industry-a great tribute and honour to the House. In making my own concluding remarks, I also want to mention my great affection and respect for my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who made distinguished contributions, as did the leader of the Scottish Nationalists here, the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
	This has been a rather good debate, which has been enjoyable to listen to. There is not much time left, but I must say that I am struck by the way in which a career can cycle around and come back to where it was. In July 1966, I joined the Conservative research department as a very young economist. The day after, one G. Brown, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, had confided in the House, and I paraphrase, We are running the economy in a way that no economy has ever been run before. Now, one could find that another G. Brown and his Chancellor are running the economy in very much the same way as the first G. Brown did 44 years ago.
	At some time, we all have to get around to clearing out our offices, and I am doing that. Today, I came across the transcript of the Committee stage of the Bank of England Act 1998, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has also mentioned. In that Committee, we discussed the independence of the Bank of England and the restructuring of the regulatory system. On 4 December 1997, I moved a series of amendments that were intended to test the strength and integrity of the Government's tripartite financial regulatory system, and we were told that it was all down to a memorandum of understanding. All I will say now-with hindsight, I readily admit-is that things went wrong not just in Britain, but internationally, and beyond our worst fears. They have triggered a massive recession and have paved the way for what I would describe as a hiatus of a Budget, because everyone is too frightened to move, at least on the Government side. They have left us all in the waiting room. We are waiting for some very unpleasant fiscal surgery, further particulars of which will be afforded at a later stage.
	On the balance of judgment, I have found it interesting that the voices from the left-we heard two together-and from the Scottish Nationalists have gone for the public spending solution. I do not believe that is plausible, but we have to find a balance, and I do not want my position to be caricatured at this late stage as saying that we want a kind of fiscal masochism of any kind. We need to tune things very carefully, but we need to bring the private sector with us, but the fear of further tax increases is the best way of killing any recovery.
	Let me make two brief points that are more or less tax-related, and then three wider points. I regret that the Government have done nothing to abort the proposals to increase national insurance contributions or to reverse their proposals to truncate the personal allowances and superannuation deductions for higher earners. In that alone, they have aggravated a problem that has long troubled me, because they have imposed further arbitrary fits and starts in what should be a reasonably progressive-I hope moderately progressive-tax system.
	Just as there are ridiculous marginal rates with benefit withdrawals, we now have in the tax system-wilfully-hurdles, dips and troughs. Spikes of marginal rate that are highly anomalous create deterrence. That is perhaps best seen, and most relevantly to the Budget, in the classic slab system that still applies to stamp duty. How many transactions for houses are done at £250,001, or at £1,000,001? The answer is very few, and that of course creates marginal rates on the order of thousands of per cent., because it is all or nothing when one goes over the limit.
	The second anomaly has to do with national insurance contributions. They have been built up by the Government as a second and politically more palatable form of income tax, but there are again major anomalies. For instance, one arises when a man reaches 65: I have worked out that the grossed-up value of no longer having to pay employee national contributions is almost as great as the value of the pension. We need to tackle such anomalies if we are to provide rational, coherent and consistent incentives for people to stay on in the labour force. Given the possible abolition of the default retirement age, such an approach might even give employers some incentive to maintain people in employment after that age.
	I shall share my wider concerns briefly with the House. They may appear a bit diverse, but I think that there is a common underlying theme. My first concern is that we still say too little about effective productivity and competitiveness. That has been a bit depressing today, yet we are in a lethally competitive world. Alongside British car firms, Volvo has just gone to a Chinese buyer. On the financial side, it is interesting to note that the City of London Corporation commissioned an Asian consultancy to produce reports on global financial centres. The seventh and final report has just been published, and the research has been described as being
	a wake-up call for policy makers that London's standing as a world-leading global financial centre should not be taken for granted.
	Add in continuing concerns about skills deficiencies and the declining productivity of the public sector, and we have a fight on our hands.
	If we are to fight that fight effectively, we must look to our social as well as our economic cohesion. Strangely, my upbringing took place on a co-operative farm. My father was a manager, and a Tory. I have stayed in the one-nation camp: I have not departed from that, and I have great sympathy with the renewed emphasis-it is not new-that my party is placing on social action and the voluntary sector.
	I believe that the new emphasis will soften the harshness that any Government would have to impose on our society, and that it will help tackle the frustration that we feel as we see more of our lives and income going to the state. The state proclaims itself to be beneficent, but it does not really provide the services that we feel that we should get, and we do not have ownership of the process.
	Most of us here can argue our way to getting our full share of the benefits of the public sector. However, I am always conscious of the people who, faced with that problem, come to see us in our surgeries because they are confused, demotivated and disempowered.
	We in this place have a duty to think together about how we can equip all our people with a good education as a basis for personal and social development, and with the right mix of skills. They must also have a reasonable progression in employment, and in their chance to take personal responsibility. That should include a share in public and local decision making, which in turn implies a more decentralised public sector. If we do not get that, we will remain stuck with a high deficit, and with national underachievement and despair.
	That brings me to my final point, which has to do with trust. The financial crisis was about a collapse in trust, and I shall always remember a cartoon that depicted a situation that I think that we have all seen. A person is about to a pay a filling station cashier. A queue is forming behind him, and the cashier says, It's all right, sir. Your credit card's OK, but we're just making another call to check whether your bank is.
	No one believes in the banking system. In the same way, no one believes in us as politicians. I think that it is all related. Whatever we say, people immediately throw it back at us. The answer is that we all have to learn to be more accountable, which involves more than process, or form, or box ticking. If we in this place want to be trusted again to make decisions on behalf of society, we need to know-and make clear-who carries the can for failure.
	We cannot allow things to collapse through the middle, without anyone being responsible for what has happened. This recession has not been an act of God; it has been an act of man-a series of systemic failures. We need accountability at the highest level of state Government. We know that these have been difficult times, and government is never easy. Any Government would have been tested to destruction at the present time but, partly through their over-optimism, arrogance and rhetoric, we now find that this Labour Government have failed. I think that they will be held accountable for that very shortly.

Edward Leigh: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. It is rather like the ones that follow a general election, when one has to speak after maiden speeches and say, What a marvellous prospect my hon. Friend for Daventry will certainly be in the years to come in this Parliament, given that he has made such a brilliant speech!
	We have had some wonderful speeches-from the right hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), and from the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase). We have had a lot of old Labour speeches: perhaps they are as much unreconstructed old Labour as much as I am unreconstructed old Tory. We have a lot in common.
	The right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan made a most marvellous speech. We love him so much because we know that he really loves this place: for all that he is a so-called nationalist, he is very sad to be leaving, and that is why we hold him in such respect. We also had a marvellous speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who totally confused us by trying to work out what a billion seconds add up to.
	We got there in the end, but he was making the very important point that language has been so corrupted that no one-not the public, nor us-can visualise what a billion or a trillion is. That is why it is becoming increasingly difficult for us to put pressure on Governments to control public spending. However, it is worth saying that the deficit is so huge that the Government will have to borrow more in 2009-10 and 2010-11-£166 billion and £163 billion, respectively-than the entire income tax take last year. As my right hon. Friend said, that will raise the debt to £1.46 trillion.
	What is £1.46 trillion? What is a billion? This is how I describe a billion to my constituents. Look at those mansions in the constituency of the Liberal party's spokesman, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). He calls them mansions, but many of them are ordinary family houses worth £1 million, so 1,000 of those make a billion. That is how we have to visualise those figures to try to get home to the public the appalling difficulties that we are in.
	Once again, the Chief Secretary, unfortunately, is not with us, although I hope he will respond to all these points, because that is what Parliament is for. It is not about making set-piece speeches; it is about responding to the debate. My appeal to the House and to those on all three Front Benches is that we should be honest. The fact is that in the next Budget, after the general election, for all classes of taxpayer-from those at the very bottom to those in the middle and those at the top-the real burden of taxation will increase. It is better to say that now.
	We will not be able to get that money off just the rich. True, the Government have increased taxation on higher income tax payers by £7 billion-they will do so by 2012-13-but the Treasury believes that the yield from the 50 per cent. rate, for instance, will be just £2.4 billion, because high earners will adjust their behaviour in ways that mean that they avoid incurring all the increased liabilities. We know that, so let us not delude ourselves that the rich will pay. We will all pay, from the bottom to the top.
	The next point that I want to make about honesty is that all Departments of Sate will have to take cuts. That includes the Department of Health. That is the honest truth. Health spending has doubled in the past 10 years. We employ 1.6 million people in the NHS, which is, I think, the second largest employer in the world, but there has been a catastrophic decline in NHS productivity. I am sure that my hon. Friends, because they are honourable people, will meet their pledge to increase resources in real terms every year if they are lucky enough to form the next Government, but of course the famous Baroness Thatcher-the great right winger, so often referred to in the debate-did exactly the same. However, if health spending is increased by 0.5 per cent. in real terms, that will ensure a cut in health outcomes because of the ageing population and the increasing number of more and more expensive drugs.
	Let us be honest with the people: everyone will end up paying more tax and they will all see cuts in Departments, including health, international development, education and transport. If health and international development, but particularly health and the benefits system, are absolved from cuts, that will ensure massive cuts in other Departments.
	My Committee has already alluded to the black hole in the Ministry of Defence budget. Even if we assume the 2.7 per cent. increase in defence spending, which by the way will not happen because whoever forms the next Government will probably freeze the defence budget, there is a £6 billion black hole. If we start to make real cuts, that could rise to £80 billion. Let us be honest about it: there will be real cuts and real tax increases. There will also be these famous efficiency savings.
	I hope that this is not my valedictory speech as a Member of Parliament-that is up to the good folk of Gainsborough-but it is certainly my valedictory speech as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I think I know a little about efficiency savings. I have interviewed 1,000 civil servants over the past 10 years and chaired 420 hearings. Let us not place too much credence on efficiency savings.
	The Budget promised, did it not, £11 billion-worth of efficiency savings. Many of the areas highlighted by the Government chime with areas that my Committee has had to focus on, such as the overuse of expensive management consultants, wasteful use of IT, inefficient management of the Government's vast property estate, poor procurement of goods and services and the desperate need of better project management. If there is one way to keep a secret, it is, as we all know, to make a speech in the House of Commons. The next best way is to send a letter to all colleagues, because it will certainly end up in the bin like these leaflets from the Conservative and Labour parties, which we have all been putting through letterboxes. I have tried to outline in a letter to colleagues some of the lessons that can be learned.
	Let me say a little about these famous efficiency savings. Last December, the National Audit Office-a non-political body-reviewed the savings claims made respectively by the Department for Transport and the Home Office. It cast enormous doubt on the reported savings. In 2007, we found that there was a question mark over nearly three quarters of the claimed £13.3 billion annual efficiency savings. The philosopher's stone has been referred to in the debate. People imagine that efficiency savings are like that-that somehow we can turn iron into gold. That simply does not happen. There is wishful thinking going on here.
	Those claims, from either party, must be real and demonstrable. They must be delivered year after year. They cannot be just one-offs. They are not genuine efficiency savings if, as we have found in many cases, they are achieved at the expense of the quality of the service. This is an opportunity. Just as falling markets are an opportunity to promote efficiency in the private sector, so the freeze in budgets that we are now going to achieve, because we have no choice, should produce real efficiency savings. But do not assume for a minute that they can be achieved without some cut in the service provided to the public. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Twickenham, because, like me, he has often questioned these efficiency savings.
	We hear so often about the sharing of back-office services, as if this was a great achievement. The PAC has heard great claims about these back-office functions. Let us look at one. The Department for Transport planned and implemented a shared corporate services project. That is the sort of language that the Treasury loves. This was carried out with stupendous incompetence. Rather than saving the taxpayer £57 million over 10 years, which, of course, all adds up to these £11 billion of efficiency savings, it will, because of the incompetence with which it was carried out, cost the taxpayer an extra £81 million, so no efficiency savings there. Perhaps one reason was that the computers spewed out instructions in German. Perhaps the thinking was that the only way to be efficient in Whitehall is to speak German. Unfortunately, most of the clerks in the Department for Transport do not speak German, so do not place too much credence there.
	Time is short and I could go on and on, but I will not because it will bore hon. Members and anyway I will be called to order in a couple of minutes. The Budget announced plans to realise property savings of £5 billion a year in running costs and £20 billion in disposals. If we believe that, we will believe anything. The Inland Revenue, of all people, was to save £236 million by reducing the size of its estate. We looked at the Mapeley STEPS contract. What an extraordinary contract that was. Not only was it carried out in such a way that it did not provide value for money, but the Inland Revenue was giving the contract to an offshore provider. The Inland Revenue of all people, which was supposed to raise taxes, hired as its estate provider somebody who is a taxpayer offshore.
	Consultancy spend, we are told, will be cut by 50 per cent., but the PAC found that central Government alone was paying out nearly £2 billion a year in consultancy fees. A further £100 million is to be saved by cutting benefit fraud. Benefits are staggeringly complex, but we have to take action. Last but not least is wiser and more effective IT spending. Apparently, if the Treasury is to be believed, the budget will be cut by £500 million. Look at the Rural Payments Agency, look at the NHS computer system. It will not happen. If we are to have real efficiency savings, we have to have an honest debate. As I said at the beginning, we have to raise taxes, balance the budget and produce real cuts in all programmes. Let us be honest with the people as we go into this general election.

Sammy Wilson: This has been an enjoyable debate. Listening to the valedictory speeches from a number of well-respected Members has been a great experience. In particular, because I served under him in Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I want to refer especially to the help that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) has been to me as a new Member of the House, and the enjoyable time that I had under his chairmanship. Some Members are leaving public life altogether. The right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is now going to run part of the Celtic fringe of this great United Kingdom, and I wish him well in that.
	The debate started off with an exchange between the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, who probably would like to be the Chancellor, and the shadow Business Secretary, whom many on the Opposition Benches might wish was the shadow Chancellor. But the one thing that became clear during the early exchanges in this debate was that this Budget is not the real Budget; it is a phony Budget. As the debate has developed, we have heard people talk about the hard choices that lie ahead and the difficult decisions that have to be made, but none of those difficult decisions has been made in this Budget; it is quite modest. Indeed, it contains about £1.4 billion of new measures, as opposed to the £5 billion of new measures that were in last year's Budget.
	Coming from Northern Ireland, I welcome some measures, such as the delayed increase in fuel duty, which in my constituency, with its large rural area, will be welcomed by those who cannot avoid using private transport and do not have the option of public transport. The fuel duty increase would have been a huge imposition on them. Doing away with stamp duty for the first-time buyers of houses worth less than £250,000 will also be welcomed in Northern Ireland, where house prices ran well ahead of first-time buyers' ability to enter the housing market. With almost 20 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland in fuel poverty, the additional winter fuel allowance will be welcomed, too. The Northern Ireland Executive will benefit by about £12.1 million in Barnett consequentials, and, even though that money will be offset by additional efficiency savings of almost £122 million this year, it will nevertheless be welcomed.
	However, we all recognise, and have recognised during this debate, the need to reduce public borrowing. Although the Chancellor has made much of the fact that borrowing is £11 billion less than he expected, it has nevertheless increased by £20 billion since last year, and our total borrowing is now 12.6 per cent. of GDP, with interest payments amounting to the same as that which we spend on defence. We know that that situation is unsustainable, and, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, has pointed out, we need to be honest with people. We cannot pretend, as some Members have done, and say that after the second world war we had a huge debt and waited until 2002 to pay it all off. We do not have that luxury, given the financial situation and how the banking system and financial markets will view the deficit, so we need a degree of candour with the electorate. We need also to tell the electorate that the issue will not be dealt with just by efficiencies; there will be cuts to front-line services, and we will need to look at some things that we do in the public sector and whether we should continue to do them.
	I hope that this does not sound contradictory, but I welcome the fact that, although we are at least now considering how we reduce the deficit, the Chancellor has not jumped in to take action and make swingeing cuts. Whether they are as deep as the cuts that Mrs. Thatcher introduced in the 1980s, or more modest, when I look at the issue from the perspective of Northern Ireland, I think that this would have been the wrong time to make them. Northern Ireland is still not out of the recession, and, while there has been a gradual upturn in other parts of the United Kingdom, unemployment is still increasing in Northern Ireland, house prices are still falling and the purchasing managers index, which shows the orders that are coming through for businesses, has fallen in Northern Ireland while it has increased elsewhere in the country. Although we will have to face the deficit, there are nevertheless good grounds for saying that the reductions should not be introduced immediately.
	There has been some debate about whether there is any connection between spending now and the recovery. I would argue, after looking at some public sector infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland, that spending now gives us better value for money. Construction costs are down by 20 per cent. Because of the state of the construction industry, we can get six schools for every five that we purchased before, or we can get extra miles of road. Indeed, were it not for public investment in Northern Ireland, the construction industry, which now has about 53 per cent. of its work coming from the public sector, would have even greater levels of unemployment than it has at present. In the past year, there has been a reduction of more than 7,000 in jobs in the construction industry, but that could have been far worse without continued public spending. I recognise, however, that that cannot go on for ever. I also accept that Northern Ireland cannot be exempt from what happens in the rest of the United Kingdom.
	Two things are essential. First, we must have a greater degree of certainty about what is going to happen with the level of cuts and reductions. That has not been the case to date. Departments need to plan ahead to see how they can deal with the reductions that are going to be made. Those reductions cannot suddenly be parachuted in-some preparations must be made.

Edward Leigh: The truth is that preparations are being made at this precise moment, but people are not being told about it.

Sammy Wilson: That brings me to my question for the Chief Secretary; I hope that we will get some answers when he replies to the debate. If the plans are there-if it is known what will happen to departmental expenditure levels-why is that information not being passed down so that proper plans can be made by Departments and, especially, devolved Administrations, and they can play their part in a constructive approach to the difficulties that face us as a nation? As the position develops-the plans that are in place may well change-why cannot information be continually fed to devolved Administrations so that they know how the situation is changing?
	Secondly, there are ways of protecting public services, one of which is a cap on public sector pay. I know that the Chancellor has indicated that he does not want to see pay increases of more than 1 per cent. However, we still have a bonus culture in the public sector. Ironically, Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom in which, despite the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body, bonuses for senior civil servants were not implemented last year. That is in keeping with the approach that we need. Bonuses often take up a huge part of public sector pay and are a cause of public resentment, as well as queries as to why people are getting paid huge bonuses when Departments are not performing. It would be useful to hear the Chief Secretary's thoughts about ongoing public sector pay negotiations and whether a pay freeze would be a way of protecting, at least to some extent, the provision of public services.
	I do not believe that the current situation is still sustainable, and anyway, I am a natural philosopher and my view of life is that I would rather people have their own money to spend than have it taken off them in tax increases and spent by the public sector. There is a balance to be a struck and a need for certainty, and the importance of timing cannot be overestimated. We will gain in credibility as a Parliament only if we approach the financial difficulties in an honest way, as the hon. Member for Gainsborough said. We must lay out all our cards for the public. I listened to interviews on Newsnight the other night, and people were saying, Do they think we're fools? We know that if we're spending more in our own houses we have to cut our spending, and we know you've got to do it for the nation.

Brooks Newmark: I first draw Members' attention to my ever-diminishing entry in the Register of Members' Financial Interests.
	I join others in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for their services not just to our party but to the House. I doubt that I will last as long as them in the House, and I have huge respect for all they have achieved. They are incredibly independent individuals who have followed their own paths and achieved great success here, and I wish them luck after they retire.
	In Budget after Budget when he was Chancellor, the Prime Minister consistently pledged, No return to boom and bust. It was his defining mantra, but now we know that he did not abolish boom and bust, he simply fuelled it. Millions of families, pensioners and businesses are now paying the price for more than a decade of economic mismanagement and fiscal imprudence.
	The Budget that we are debating was the current Chancellor's chance to leave a better economic legacy for our country than his predecessor, the Prime Minister. It was a chance to present a credible plan, get the British economy moving again, support hard-working families, offer a new direction for public services, reverse the tax on jobs and offer equality of opportunity for all. Instead, we got a do-nothing Budget from a Government with nothing new to offer. The legacy of this Labour Government is clear: they have taken Britain right from boom through to bust. It is on that record of boom and bust that the Prime Minister will shortly be judged at the ballot box, and it is that record that I wish to examine a little today.
	I begin with the budget deficit. With due respect to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), who is no longer in his place, he seems to live in a parallel universe. We are living with perhaps the worst budget deficit in the G7. We have a worse deficit than even Greece. In fact, I believe it is the worst in the developed world. For too many years, the Prime Minister has been effectively maxing out the nation's credit card, and his solution and that of the Chancellor in the Budget is to say, Let's take out a new credit card.
	We are treading on dangerous ground, and in fact the Government have been chastised by both the European Commission and the Bank of England for their lack of clarity in dealing with the budget deficit. The financial markets have begun to punish their fiscal imprudence. I believe that in the credit default swaps market, McDonald's is rated higher than the British Government today.
	This Budget did nothing to allay anybody's concerns. Reducing projected borrowings by a projected paltry £11 billion provides no basis for rejoicing. Indeed, as we have heard, the Red Book shows that Government borrowing in 2009-10 is projected at £166 billion, which works out-I am sorry that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) is not here to hear this-at £456 million a day, or £19 million an hour, or £317,000 a minute, or £5,280 a second. That is the legacy that this Government are leaving for us to clear up, after 6 May hopefully.
	On public debt, the last Conservative Government bequeathed national debt of some £350 billion. Under the Prime Minister's stewardship and his ceaseless moving of the goalposts of his now discredited golden rules, debt is forecast to reach some £777 billion this year. That means that each and every person will owe a liability of an extra £23,000 by 2014. As debt has increased, so has the cost of servicing it. We read in the Red Book that the debt interest for 2010-11 will be £41.6 billion. As we are discussing education today, I should say that that is in fact bigger than the whole of the schools budget of £40.6 billion. However, that is not the whole story. The Minister may be familiar with my analysis of the true extent of Government debt. Counting liabilities that are hidden off the balance sheet, debt now perhaps stands at a staggering £2.2 trillion. That includes public sector pension liabilities, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) alluded, which are almost £1 trillion, private finance initiatives and bank debt-we must count the debts of the banks that we have acquired.
	The Chancellor may be comfortable for debt to rocket to a predicted £1.4 trillion on-balance sheet in 2014-15, but that is more than 100 per cent. of gross domestic product, and we cannot keep our heads in the sand any longer. The hard decisions must be taken now, and we need mechanisms in place to prevent any future profligate Chancellors-of any party-from frittering away taxpayers' money. The Conservative party would establish an office of budget responsibility to provide an independent audit of all Government liabilities and to hold them to account for all their fiscal promises.
	This is all about transparency, and the Government have not been transparent with the public on the true extent of the nation's debt, among other things. A lack of transparency permeates every aspect of the Prime Minister's legacy of boom and bust, yet surely now more than ever, taxpayers deserve transparency. The Government have rightly demanded rigorous transparency from banks and companies, but they lose all credibility when they refuse to apply the same standards to themselves. It seems that few lessons have been learnt. In his Budget speech, the Chancellor failed to mention the stealth hikes that are hidden in the small print. He has frozen all personal allowances, effectively increasing taxes for 30 million hard-working individuals up and down the country.
	The Chancellor also promised details on spending cuts, but instead, we have a £20 million black hole where details of future spending should be. Departmental officials have even admitted that they know nothing of those details. For a Government claiming economic rectitude to have no spending plans beyond next year simply defies belief, and economic and financial credibility. We need to create transparency throughout government-both local and national.
	Savers are the economic bedrock of society, and those who prudently put away money during the good times in preparation for the hard times must be rewarded, yet that logic is entirely antithetical to our boom-and-bust Prime Minister. That is why household savings had dropped almost to zero when the recession hit. We are consistently one of the lowest-saving countries in the OECD. I was pleased with the doubling of the individual savings account limit in the Budget, but we need to go further to restore a savings culture. The path to prosperity depends on an economic model based on savings and investment, not consumer borrowing and Government debt.
	The poorest pay the highest taxes: the poorest 20 per cent. pay 39 per cent. in income tax while the richest 20 per cent. pay 35 per cent. Indeed, when the withdrawal of benefits is taken into account, low-paid earners have a marginal tax rate of some 96 per cent. Furthermore, child poverty has increased for the third year in a row. Today, some 4 million children live in poverty. Tony Blair's ambition of halving child poverty by 2010 has been left in tatters by this Prime Minister.
	As the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has concluded, the strategy against child poverty and social exclusion pursued since the late 1990s is largely exhausted. Today, one in five young people cannot find a job. In my constituency alone, unemployment has trebled. Will the 1 per cent. increase in national insurance be an incentive for employers to hire more people? I suspect not, and we are right to propose abolishing it.
	The Prime Minister talked about the collapse in sterling. In 1992, when he was shadow Chancellor, the Prime Minister said that
	a weak currency arises from a weak economy which in turn is the result of a weak Government.
	Never was a truer word spoken. We have heard about the sell-off of gold at prices four times below its level today, losing the Exchequer some £6 billion. The tax credits system has lost billions of pounds through incredible mismanagement, and the Public Accounts Committee has pointed out that
	tax credits suffer from the highest rates of error and fraud in government.
	My constituents would certainly agree. Every week I, like many hon. Members, hear from families facing real hardship, uncertainty and stress at a time they can ill afford it. I am a firm supporter of tax credits, but the system needs urgent reform. For a start, the Government should have used this Budget to focus on tax credits for households with incomes less than £50,000.
	The dissection of the Prime Minister's blueprint from boom to bust could go on, but the message is clear. The very boom and bust that the Prime Minister hubristically claimed to have abolished will now be the epitaph of this Labour Government. The Chancellor said that this Budget would be about choices, and his choice was simple-generate the ideas and reform necessary to get Britain moving again, or end Labour's terms in office with a continuation of the Prime Minister's boom and bust politics. The Chancellor made the wrong choice. A Budget comprising back-of-the-envelope sums and delivered with one eye on the ballot box was not the Budget that Britain needed. We do not need more of this debt, waste, tax and irresponsibility. Short-sighted political positioning should never come above the economic interests of the nation. We need change, vigour and ideas to get our economy moving again. In a few weeks' time, I hope that that is exactly what we will have.

Andrew MacKinlay: Much of this long Budget debate has focused on apportioning blame for the present crisis. Many institutions and individuals, in Parliament and outside-and Parliament itself-must take a considerable amount of the blame for the problems that we face, including the failure to regulate, over-confidence and arrogance. However, the crisis also took place against the backdrop of things that were way beyond the capacity of the UK to control or monitor. We have to be realistic about that.
	One thing of which I am certain is that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are the best people to provide good stewardship and see the UK through the crisis. I have two historical parallels. At the time of the Norway debate, 70 years ago, Winston Churchill should arguably have taken some of the blame for that disaster as First Lord of the Admiralty. However, I have never had any doubt that he was the best person to prosecute the war with vigour and to victory. Margaret Thatcher could have been charged with abdicating her responsibilities and giving the green light to the Argentine dictators to take the Falkland Islands, but I have no doubt that she had the greatest chance of pushing the invader out and prosecuting that war with great success. In the same way, this Labour Government need to be returned in order to see us through this crisis and I have every confidence in their capacity to do so.
	I would like to refer to some aspects of the Budget. There has been a real attempt to protect fragile industries and small and medium-sized businesses, and, in many cases, to incubate them against the crisis swirling around us in the economy. It is essential that we protect our public services and, in so doing, maintain demand and stimulus. The Government's long trek to reducing public expenditure is the correct and prudent approach, unlike the approach that our friends in the Conservative party would rush to and which would create a deeper hole and crisis in the short term. The Chancellor is the best person to see us through the crisis, and I believe that his strategy is correct.
	Eighteen years ago, I made my maiden speech here. It was my fifth attempt to get elected to Parliament, and over the years I have been a Labour candidate of some sort on 13 occasions. It is with great pride that I have stood for the Labour party, and it is also with immeasurable pride that I have been the Member of Parliament for Thurrock, representing people of all persuasions to the best of my ability. It has been a great honour and privilege to serve them. My constituency has changed greatly-for the better-in 18 years: there is higher employment and greater diversity, in terms of ethnicity and social class, and one could justifiably say that it is booming. The Labour Government will leave to the people of Thurrock a rich legacy, particularly in the improvement of education. My borough had been greatly deprived for many years by the old Essex county council. Getting unitary status and developing academies has benefited the children of my borough enormously over the past 18 years, particularly since the advent of the Labour Government.
	Of course, during those 18 years there have been some frustrations. It is a great pity that the Labour Government have never addressed the West Lothian question. It is a mistake to ignore this, as if it would go away. I also wish that we had gone faster on electoral reform, but as I leave Parliament, there is a real opportunity for a substantial change in the electoral system during the next Parliament. I wish, too, that we had tackled the upper House, whose functions are extremely important, but whose construction is of questionable legitimacy. If I had a chance of being one of the last to get there, that would be fine, but I would love to be one of the first of the new. If there are elections to the upper House in the future, and if I am fit and well, I would certainly like to throw my hat into the ring.
	I should add, before I digress totally, that the Budget also referred to my constituency in relation to the Dartford-Thurrock toll, which, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has said on several occasions, the Government want to privatise. I have no ideological objection to privatising the Dartford tunnel toll, but I do ask him again how he plans to do it. Mandarins, who are removed from the real world, have conjured up this idea, and Ministers repeat it like a mantra. I am not necessarily opposed to it, but I invite him, for the third time, to tell us how he plans to privatise or sell the Dartford toll. It is not clear to me how it could be achieved or what would be of benefit. I think it will be seen to be a non-runner.
	As I said, my constituency has changed greatly in my 18 years. To the great benefit of the community, we have absorbed large numbers of people who have come to this country, often in very distressful and adverse circumstances. We had the Bosnians in the mid-1990s, Kosovans, Afghans, people from war-torn parts of Africa and people trying to get out of the despotic regime that currently disfigures the wonderful country of Iran. That has put a great strain on my staff and colleagues, and we have done our best to protect and promote these people's interests. However, I have been particularly frustrated by how the Home Office has been unable to get on top of the chaos at Lunar house. Many hon. Members from across the political spectrum share that view. It is just unbelievable that there is such chaos upon chaos, but it also has distressing human consequences for families who do not know their status and who cannot travel or make contact with loved ones. I urge the Government to address that with some dispatch. We are also very proud of the growing Nepalese and Gurkha community in Thurrock. In particular, their young people are becoming wonderful role models in our schools.
	The Budget had a significant section on Government savings. I personally think that whoever forms the next Government needs to have a war on quangos, of which there are far too many, and also stop this perpetual so-called-but wholly bogus-system of reorganisation. Both parties have been guilty of that in the past. There is enormous cost and loss in reorganisation. Good people retire early and are never seen again. It is like painting the Forth bridge, and the product is not much better at the end, if it is at all better. We had local government structures from 1888 to 1974 that worked well and underwent organic change. This obsession, of both the Tory and Labour parties, with reorganising the public sector nationally and locally is frankly bonkers and very costly, and I hope that this trend will end.
	I would also urge my hon. Friends to stop their obsession with creating things such as quangos-or whatever gobbledegook they call it-with names like Stepping Stones, Partnership, Looking at Blue-Sky Policies, and all that kind of nonsense. Why do we not stop all that, have some definite structures and call public servants precisely what they are, with titles such as borough engineer or surveyor, which we understand, rather than director of this or director of that, for the six weeks before a further reorganisation?
	I am pleased that my friend the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is here. One of the great successes over the period in which I have been in Parliament has been the resolution of conflict in Northern Ireland. It is a wonderful place and I intend to spend more time there recreationally when I leave this place. I am also going to work on my notebook-alas, it is not a diary, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), but there are some good things in it, and I want to codify them.
	Members who are leaving this House will want to say the following on behalf of those who are bravely standing again and hope to be returned. Being in this House is a priceless privilege, but it is also seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. There are many critics, and we should be subject to some criticism, but some of it is very harsh and unfair. I say to those who think that they can be a Member of Parliament better and more cheaply that not only can they stand for election, but arguably they have a duty to do so. They need to stand up for what they claim.
	The last point that I want to make, in thanking all the staff here, my staff, and my wife and family for their support, is this. Theodore Roosevelt said 100 years ago:
	Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.
	I send my best wishes to Members from right across the political spectrum who are standing for re-election. I thank them for their fellowship while I have been in this House, and I hope that this place will strengthen itself in the next Parliament.

Brian Binley: I have listened to some excellent speeches, many of which have been by people who will be leaving this House. It has been a privilege to be here, and I know that we all wish them well in the years to come.
	I also listened to some good people in Northampton over the weekend. I wanted to know what they thought about the Budget. I hate to say this-no I don't-but they gave me some bad news for the Chancellor, because they told me that the Government had not been honest about the size of the problem that the country faces. They feel that the Government have not been truthful about growth forecasts, their borrowing requirement, or their handling of public sector debt, and they are unhappy with the plan to cut the deficit through increased taxation.
	My constituents told me that they felt there were just two certainties. The first was the continuation of debt, waste and taxes, and the second was the continuation of pain for themselves and concern for the business world. They thought this was a fairytale Budget of could-bes, might-bes and maybes, and that it did little to eradicate the fears that they have voiced. They did not think it was good enough. The really sad thing was that not many of them felt any great hope for the future-certainly not for the next four or five years. It is worrying that a Chancellor presenting his last Budget should create such an effect.
	So much for the responses of the people of Northampton. I want now to discuss one of the problems that they identified in a little more detail, however-that of public sector debt. I am not surprised that my sensible constituents expressed concern about this. We have only to look at the Treasury forecasts to understand just how much debt we face. A figure of 44 per cent. of gross domestic product was given for 2008-09. The figure for 2009-2010 is 56 per cent., and it is set to rise to 78 per cent. in 2014-15. That is all because the Government apparently took the advice of a lady we remember well, who won the pools many years ago. When asked what she was going to do with the money, she said she was going to Spend, spend, spend.
	That is exactly what has happened in recent years, as illustrated by this Prime Minister's vain boast that he had done away with bust. He thought he was infallible, but we are now paying the price. So certain was he about this that he told the Financial Services Authority to apply a light touch. The policy of spend, spend, spend has ended up just as we all thought it would: with bust, bust, bust. The Prime Minister's arrogance has led to a longer, more persistent recession than we would otherwise have experienced. The real problem for many people is that the cost will be borne by their children and grandchildren, and they will not thank Mr. Blair or Mr. Brown for that legacy.
	The Government have admitted that public sector debt will increase until 2014-15. Under the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2010, the net debt is required to fall as a share of GDP by 2015-16, but many think that there is little hope of that happening. It will be a long climb out of recession, and it is unlikely that we will have cleared public sector debt by 2030. It is clear that the nation-and, in particular, its small and medium-sized businesses-will face continued difficulty, and will suffer as a result of this Budget and the Government's actions up to this stage.
	The Chancellor has claimed that Budget pledges will help small businesses, but they tell me that that is not the case. Among the measures that will not help them are the national insurance increases involving a 1 per cent. increase for all employers and a 1 per cent. increase for everyone earning more than £20,000. Those increases represent a massive belt to the confidence of industry at a time when it needs all the confidence it can get. The Federation of Small Businesses tells us that they will cost 57,000 jobs. The Treasury's own economic model suggests that national insurance rises will reduce GDP by 1 per cent. after three years. The Forum of Private Business has said that these measures are not helpful for job creation, and suggested that a 12-month cut in national insurance contributions would encourage small businesses and allow them to hire extra staff. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench are listening because, by golly, if there is one thing we need to do at this moment it is to produce wealth and create the jobs that are vital to the future well-being of this country.
	I want to touch briefly on the increase in alcohol duty. Many will know that I am a keen supporter of pubs; I enjoy them immensely. However, 2,377 pubs have closed in the past year, thanks to falling beer sales, and seven are going out of business every day. Let us also look at the increase in fuel duty. The Road Haulage Association has claimed that hauliers are already operating on a shoestring budget, and that they desperately need a break. Some have already gone bust and many others are struggling to survive. When VAT decreased to 15 per cent. in January 2009, an extra 2p a litre was levied on fuel, but that was not changed when VAT returned to 17.5 per cent. in January 2010. People feel let down. They feel they were conned, as this has impacted massively on their businesses.
	Many businesses have told me they are worried about the lack of measures to tackle the underlying problems. The Institute of Directors would have liked to hear more about the deficit reduction. Miles Templeman said:
	The Chancellor's GDP forecasts are too optimistic and there is still no sign of a credible deficit reduction.
	Businesses wanted to hear that; they wanted to hear what the Government were going to do. They felt let down, and we talked about lack of hope because they did not know where they stood. The CBI remains of the view that the Government's target date of 2017-18 for Budget balance is
	too far off to instil the credibility necessary to ensure the UK's public finance position.
	I could go on about the plight of small businesses. They are the largest employer in Britain, and if Britain is to recover, small businesses need to be encouraged to grow. They are the life-blood of the nation's creativity: almost 70 per cent. of British creativity comes from this sector. The sector was in the process of producing 2 million jobs up to the recession, at a time when UK plc was shedding 1.5 million jobs. Small businesses are the powerhouse of jobs growth, and the Government need to recognise the importance of encouraging that particular sector to flourish. My party has pledged to do away with a sizeable part of the planned increase in national insurance because it will help that particular sector to do exactly what it does best: grow jobs, be creative, produce wealth.
	My party has also pledged to cut corporation tax for small businesses and will not tax the first 10 jobs in any new company. That is welcomed by them, too, but the national insurance rise that I just mentioned is bad for job creation. It does not encourage people to get back to work. We should be pushing policies that increase economic growth to get Britain working again. My grandmother would have told anyone that the way to get out of debt is not by spending more money but by recognising that too much money is being spent and doing something about it. This Government have not yet reached that position. Perhaps it is because there is an election coming up; that may well be the truth of the matter.
	The people to whom I spoke at the weekend felt that this Government had failed them. They said it was time for new thinking, for a new message, for a new approach. They did not want the same tax and spend and waste that they felt had occurred quite sizeably over recent years. They told me it was time for a new Government made up of people who understood the needs of SMEs. I would tell them that this Budget proves that such a Government would exclude the party that has been responsible for it.

John Hayes: I have never been terribly interested in the present because now is an illusion, as it instantly becomes then. I have always been most interested in the past, as it is the thing we can most readily alter through our memory. Unlike Keynes, however, I am interested in the future. Keynes said that in the long run we are all dead. But I say the long run counts. It counts particularly for those of us who have children. I have two young children and I care about what happens to them. I care about the debt they will face-both personally and as part of a country now facing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) has just said, a mountain of debt.
	By their very nature, Budgets look to the future. They plan the economic future and particularly the next 12 months in economic terms. This was not really a Budget that looked to the long term; it looked no further ahead than about six weeks. It was an immensely short-term Budget and a political Budget-one that took not difficult strategic decisions but convenient tactical decisions, failing to meet the challenges we face.
	It is clear from the Budget that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister misunderstood the scale of the recession from the outset. They did not expect it to last longer than those experienced by their economic rivals. As we know, however, it has lasted six full financial quarters, longer than any recession in any other G7 country, and GDP has shrunk by 6.2 per cent. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that Government borrowing as a share of GDP will be the highest in the G20 this year. What is the response from the Government? The Budget offers no credible path to a stronger economic future; all it offers are more hidden tax rises in the shape of frozen income tax thresholds and increased national insurance, which is a tax on jobs.
	The banking crisis and the recession that followed exposed fundamental problems for an economy that has become too dependent on a single sector. Two of the most profound macro-economic changes in my lifetime, both of them undesirable, have been the growth in the power of transnational corporations with no allegiance to any one nation and, indeed, no loyalty beyond their commercial interests, and the dependence of economies-bought by many liberal economists as desirable-on a limited number of economic providers, or sectors. That is what has happened to our financial services and banking. It is impossible to imagine the Government emerging from the present problem, given that they failed to recognise it and were, to an extent, responsible for it.
	Perhaps the most tragic outcome of those failed financial policies is the growing army of young people who are not in employment, education or training, and in the few minutes available to me I want to say a word about their plight. They are often presented in a fairly cold way-they are seen as an economic opportunity cost- but we are talking about up to a million young lives. We are talking about broken dreams and shattered hopes. We are talking about people who, because of their disengagement, are likely to be socially and culturally detached, and who, because of the declining number of unskilled jobs, are unlikely to find employment even in the medium and long term. If one's first experience of the job market is one of disappointment and detachment, that may have profound long-term implications.
	Even in the good times, the times of economic growth, the number of young people so affected was rising. That was a trend problem, and not a result of the recession. Nevertheless, it has been exacerbated by the recession, and we have a moral duty to do something about it. We have a duty to create new opportunities for those young people, and to provide them with the skills they will need to participate in an economy that will become increasingly highly skilled and high-tech. For Britain has no long-term future as a low-tech economy: we will not return to the days when we made tin-plate metal toys. We will survive and compete only as a high-tech, highly skilled nation. Those young people's opportunities lie in that vision, but no such vision is set out in the Budget. It contains no such ambition for the generation that I have described-that forgotten army of young people.
	In the couple of minutes left to me, let me propose an alternative. Let me give the House a taste of a different Britain. Let me allow the Chamber and the country to dare to dream again of something better. It is entirely possible for us to regenerate the prospects of that forgotten army by investing in skills. The House would expect me to say something about skills.
	I do not take the Chicago economist's view that all that matters is flexibility in economies or, indeed, in labour markets. I was interested by one or two of the speeches made by members of other parties in that regard. I believe that investment in skills pays dividends beyond the obvious, and that it has a variety of social and cultural as well as economic effects. I believe that it gives people a sense of pride and purpose, and builds a cohesive society.
	We need to boost the number of apprenticeships massively by transferring large amounts of money from the Government's failed Train to Gain programme, with its immense deadweight cost, to the apprenticeship budget. We must do that by designing new apprenticeship frameworks, by making it easier for small companies to participate, and by changing both the prospects of people and our economic prospects. We could have seen that in the Budget, but we did not. We will see it in a Conservative Budget, run by a very difficult Administration who will bring new hope to those people and to the whole of our country.

Philip Hammond: We have heard some excellent speeches this evening. This has also been a poignant debate, with six valedictories. They were delivered by the hon. Members for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) and for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay); by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack); by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), whom I had the privilege of serving under when she was shadow Secretary of State for Health; by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who led for the Opposition on the first Standing Committee on which I had the pleasure of serving in this place; and by the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who said, in referring to his own, that a Member's maiden speech is often the best speech that they make in this place. I suspect that that might not be the case for all Members, but it is probably beyond question that it is the best rehearsed speech any Member ever makes in this place. I pay tribute to all of the departing Members, and I am sure that I speak for all of us in wishing them well whatever they do in the future.
	The scale of the fiscal and economic challenge this country faces is unprecedented. The backdrop to the Budget is stark: unprecedented levels of public borrowing and structural imbalance in the public finances. Despite the prediction that we would lead the world out of recession, Britain was the last G20 country to emerge from a recession that was the longest and deepest on record. We still have the biggest Budget deficit in the G20 and one of the weakest economic recoveries. In February of this year alone, the Labour Government borrowed more than they will spend on police and immigration in the whole year. They are racking up debt at a rate of more than £300,000 a minute-a legacy to our children and our grandchildren that will take them a lifetime to pay off.
	Our credit rating is under threat; one in five young people in this country cannot find a job; child poverty is increasing; the banking system cannot finance the recovery in the small and medium-sized business sector; and national income per head is lower in real terms now than it was at the last general election. Therefore, what we needed last Wednesday was a big Budget: a Budget to match the scale of the challenges the country faces; a Budget for recovery; a Budget with the vision and the toughness to tackle the challenges we face, not duck them. This Budget was Labour's last chance to bid for fiscal credibility, and they blew it.
	For the Chancellor personally, it was the last opportunity to secure his legacy, but he chose partisanship over statesmanship. What did he give us? He gave us a Budget whose good news announcement was that we are borrowing only £167 billion this year and £163 billion next year; a Budget whose only big ideas-the stamp duty cut for first-time buyers, the green investment bank and new university places-were stolen from the Conservatives; an empty, cynical, pre-election Budget, lacking in energy, lacking in vision, lacking in new ideas to get the economy moving again. It shows no sign of the Government's having grasped the scale of the mess they have got us into.
	It is therefore unsurprising that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said it was not so much a Budget as a holding statement. A City commentator described it as
	a do-nothing Budget that had shades of Nero about it.
	It contains nothing to deal with the legacy of Labour's debt, nothing to put this country back on the path to sustainable prosperity-instead, just more delay, dissembling and ducking of the tough decisions.
	Perhaps we should not be too surprised when we look at the track record of this Government and this Prime Minister: the man who ended boom and bust; the man who doubled the tax rate for the poor and destroyed social mobility in this country; the financial genius who sold the nation's gold reserves at a quarter of what they are now worth; the visionary who raided our pension funds and destroyed a pension system that was once the envy of Europe; who has doubled our national debt and set it on course to double again; who has made an art form of deferring the bad news; and who has made every decision since this crisis began on the basis not of what is good for Britain's economy, but of what will conceal the scale of his failure until after a general election. His credibility is destroyed. Just a few months ago, he was still peddling the line, Labour investment versus Tory cuts, but now his own Chancellor says that the cuts will be deeper and tougher than Margaret Thatcher's.
	What did we get from the Chancellor in the Budget statement on his planned spending cuts? We got about 30 seconds in a 58-minute speech, with the real announcement sneaked out later in the afternoon in a series of press releases that were meaningless in their content and bogus in their precision. I am thinking of the £343 million-not £340 million-of savings identified in the Ministry of Justice over the next three years and the £194 million saving to be made in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Those are meaningless and bogus because the Prime Minister has refused to allow his Chancellor to publish a spending review for the next three years. A departmental saving is meaningless if we do not know what the departmental budget is to start with.
	Cabinet Ministers, including the Schools Secretary, have been tripping over themselves to claim that they have to cut only x hundred million or y hundred million pounds from their budgets. The truth is that they do not know how much they will have to cut, because they do not know what their budgets will be as the Chancellor has not told them and he has not told the electorate. He has not told the electorate for a reason, which is that he does not want them to know because he does not want a real debate on spending priorities.

Rob Marris: The hon. Gentleman decries the Chancellor for lacking credibility, vision, energy and new ideas, but in the few minutes remaining to him tonight will he set out what the Opposition would do, because that was singularly lacking from the Leader of the Opposition's response to the Budget on Wednesday?

Philip Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard plenty about what the Opposition will do. I do not know where he was yesterday, when we spent most of our time telling the world what we plan to do. Ending Labour's tax on jobs is our first mission.
	The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wearing his I am ever so reasonable straight face, tells us that the reason why we do not have a comprehensive spending review is because it does not make sense to set departmental spending totals when we do not yet know what unemployment will be next year or the year after next. However, he does not mind setting a Budget based on a growth projection for next year and the year after, which nobody outside the four walls of the Treasury, and probably not many people inside them, thinks is a sensible Budget assumption.
	What the Government's press releases did was confirm that Labour has identified, on its own estimation, £11 billion of waste. That is waste that it says it can eliminate without affecting front-line services, but that it will not eliminate until some time after 2011-12. Move over post-neoclassical endogenous growth theory, because we now have a new economic theory from the Labour party: Labour's waste-induced growth theory. It appears to state that Government waste is an essential ingredient of economic recovery. Presumably, on the Schools Secretary's logic, higher economic growth-perhaps even the achievement of the Chancellor's 3.25 per cent. target-will require even more waste to be identified, but not eliminated. Let us be clear that Labour's stated plan is to carry on wasting and raising taxes to pay for that waste. Its approach is about taxing jobs in a recovery to pay for Labour waste, which the Government have identified but have not got the wit or the commitment to eliminate.
	I lose track of who is allied to whom in the Government, and who is speaking to whom this week, but some hon. Members may remember that just a couple of weeks ago the Chief Secretary said emphatically that there would be no tax increases. He was immediately slapped down by the cardinal archbishop and by the Chancellor, and now we know why. Although we would not have heard most of them in the statement that the Chancellor delivered last Wednesday, the Budget contained plenty of Labour's hallmark stealth taxes. It contained a £2.2 billion hike in income tax through the freezing of thresholds-that is a £48 bill for every taxpayer in the country, which did not even merit a mention in the Chancellor's speech. Indeed, he seems to think it a matter of yawn-inducing indifference that everyone will pay £48 more in tax.
	The temporary abolition of stamp duty for first-time buyers, which, incidentally, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said was not
	an effective use of public money -[ Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 21 May 2009; c. 108.]
	when we proposed it, is being financed by a permanent tax increase on higher value property. That is another sleight of hand. The huge tax hikes on cider drinkers put at risk an industry that employs thousands of people in the west country, and I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against that ill thought through tax proposal.
	Despite the Chancellor's rhetoric about helping small businesses, there are yet more stealth taxes on businesses, including an increase in the small business corporation tax rate. There was an apparent cut in business rate relief, but the small print of the Red Book shows that revenues from business rates will go up by £1 billion, not down. The product of a botched rates revaluation and the deferred hikes from last year will mean soaring bills for many small firms from April 2010. That is literally the last straw for many cash-strapped businesses that are struggling to raise credit. There is also the telephone tax on households and businesses across the land-a tax of £7 a year, including VAT, for every line. What is that for? It is to pay for an objective that we have clearly shown can be delivered without any tax rise.
	Just when people might have thought that things could not get any worse, tucked away in a footnote on page 204 is the admission that the Government more than doubled our contribution to the European Union between 2008 and 2010. They have gone to extraordinary lengths today to bring back Tony Blair. Perhaps they would like to bring him here to explain what he meant when he told the House:
	The UK rebate will remain and we will not negotiate it away. Period.-[ Official Report, 8 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1234.]
	He was right in one sense, of course. They did not negotiate it away; they gave it away. Britain deserved better then and it deserves better now.
	What we needed was a Budget for the future. We needed a Budget that took tough decisions, rather than shirking them, such as the decision to start reducing the deficit in 2010 with a credible plan to eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over the lifetime of the next Parliament. We needed a Budget that answered the critics in the markets, in the business community and among overseas investors who have repeatedly condemned the Government's plans as inadequate, incomplete and incredible.
	When the family budget gets tight, people have to think about what they can afford. When the national finances are in this kind of crisis, we as a nation have to think about what we can afford. It is clear that Britain cannot afford five more years of this-five more years of Labour's debt, waste and taxes. That would bring a risk of interest rate rises choking growth, mortgage rates soaring for millions of families and the UK's credit rating in play. It would mean five more years of a Labour Government who were elected on a bogus promise to carry on spending, which they know they cannot keep.
	It is time for a change and for a new Government with the vigour, the commitment and the energy to sort out the mess this country is in and to get us back on the path of sustainable economic growth, securing both private prosperity and high-quality public services for future generations. Let us do that now. Let us stop Labour's waste so that we can stop Labour's tax rises. Let us tackle the debt, not talk about it. Let us put this discredited Parliament and this discredited Government behind us. Let us vote for the change that Britain needs.

Liam Byrne: May I apologise again for missing the start of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was present at the start of the debate and it was notable that the right hon. Gentleman was not. I wonder on what basis he is going to reply to the debate given that he has not been present to witness or participate in it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I say to the hon. Lady that the matter has been taken up, perhaps when she was temporarily not in the House herself. It has been dealt with, and I think that we should now complete the Budget debate.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I was about start on a note of consensus, by agreeing with the shadow Chief Secretary that we have had four days of full and frank debate about the Budget. I should like to begin my words of congratulation with a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (John McFall). He is not in his place at the moment, but he has made a significant contribution, just as he has contributed to economic debates in this House over the last 22 years-and not least during the eight years in which has chaired the Treasury Committee.
	My right hon. Friend outlined the importance of the Budget's measures to support small business, and he endorsed the view that to end Government support for small business now would be nothing short of inviting disaster. I know that all Members of the House will join me in wishing him a long and enjoyable retirement.
	Over the course of these debates, some hon. Members have argued for a faster pace of deficit reduction. We heard contributions on that from the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), and from the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood). We also heard this afternoon from the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), who was making his last contribution in this place, and he was echoed by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).Others, on the other hand, argued that the stimulus provided in the Budget was insufficient. That was the argument as set out by the right hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in his final contribution to debates in this House.
	Others, however, have welcomed this Budget for its help for manufacturing and business, and for its investment in their communities. My right hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), as well as the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross), my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), echoed that point. This afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) made the same point in his valedictory speech, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase).
	Others welcomed the Budget's investment in infrastructure such as Thameslink, which was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), while others welcomed the investment in schools, the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron). The hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) made a powerful argument in support of the cider industry, and this afternoon the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Binley) flagged the impact on pubs.
	This morning, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that the British economy grew not by 0.1 per cent., or indeed 0.3 per cent., at the end of last year, but by 0.4 per cent., which is faster than Germany, Italy and across the European area. We must, of course, remain cautious, but it is fresh and welcome evidence that the action taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has worked.
	That action has kept unemployment in this country down. It is 2 per cent. lower than across Europe, and 2 per cent. lower than America. The Chancellor's action has worked to keep the rates of repossessions and business failures at half of what we saw in the 1990s. So the central argument set out in the Budget has to do with how we build on that action, lock in recovery over the months and years to come, and secure growth.
	That is why the Budget puts up public spending for the year ahead, rather than cuts it. That is why it widens the help for business cash flow, and why we are taking sweeping measures to increase lending to small and medium-sized businesses. It is why we are extending the offer of a job to every young person out of work for six months, and why we are bringing together £4 billion of new investment in small businesses. It is why we are creating a £2 billion green investment bank, doubling entrepreneurs' relief to £2 million, and investing £250 million more in our transport infrastructure. We will not leave recovery to chance, and we will not leave the jobs of tomorrow to the vicissitudes of the marketplace.
	The Budget puts £2.5 billion towards supporting the jobs of the future-what a contrast to the Opposition! The Leader of the Opposition is fond of saying that his party's evolution is something of a journey. It would be a good aphorism for his economic policy, as it is a journey that has gone round in circles. Back in 2006, the shadow Chancellor said that stability and not tax cuts was his priority. In 2007, he dropped stability and said that tax cuts were all that mattered. Then he said that he would stick with our spending plans, and then that he would not. Then he said that he would prioritise the deficit, and now he is back to tax cuts.
	It was no surprise to hear the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) tell the BBC, Of course there is no plan. He was not kidding. First he got it wrong on regulation, then on banks, then on saving jobs, and now he has got it wrong on helping business.
	The Tory plan to scrap investment allowances, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies, would
	be at the expense of businesses that are investing heavily in the UK.
	The international tax adviser to General Electric said it was a real own goal. The Engineering Employers Federation-a body not known for its slavish adherence to Labour party orthodoxy-has said that abolishing those allowances
	would be a disaster. Any business would have to think twice about investing in the UK.
	Did that move the Conservative party? Of course not. As the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) said, ignoring GE and the EEF was the right thing to do because he would not be
	seduced by the arguments of losers.
	With policy brains such as that at work, it is scarcely a surprise that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has been manoeuvred in to help. As I was casually looking at my favourite new blog, order-order.com, I was surprised to read that at Tory central office the shadow Chancellor's desk is now listed as George Osborne/Hotdesk. Are they trying to send him a message? May I comfort him with the news that we have strengthened protection for temporary workers?
	The truth is that Conservative Front Benchers are auditioning for the same job without a script. That is the only explanation for why one day the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) says that Greece represents
	the scale of the problem we could face,
	and the next, the shadow Chief Secretary says
	nobody is suggesting that we are going to follow Greece.
	One day, the Leader of the Opposition says:
	Of course there is a danger if you do too much too early, you could choke off demand.
	The next day, the shadow Chief Secretary says, We've got to make a start in 2010. The IMF, the IFS, UBS, the CBI, two Nobel laureates and, greater still, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) say that now is not the time to slam on the brakes, as do 186 members of the IMF. Only North Korea and Iran disagree.
	At the very least, may I ask the shadow Chancellor to listen to his own fiscal adviser, Sir Alan Budd, the former Treasury chief economist? He says:
	If you go too quickly then there is a risk that the recovery will be snuffed out.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, you know that you are in trouble when your own adviser starts repeating Labour's dividing lines.
	Alongside our plan to secure recovery and growth, the Chancellor set out our plan to halve the deficit. It is the most ambitious plan in the G7. The forecasts set out by the Chancellor show that debt over the next few years will be £100 billion lower than forecast. That means that borrowing will fall by £78 billion over the next four years: £19 billion will come from increased taxes and £38 billion from cuts in public spending, with the rest coming from a return to growth in the economy.
	Difficult decisions will be demanded of us, but we will approach that challenge determined to protect vital front-line services-in health, education and police numbers-while we bring borrowing down. Because we blunted the force of the recession, our tax receipts are better than expected. Borrowing this year is £11 billion lower, but our plan to halve the deficit will continue at the same pace.
	We have already announced tax increases that make up £19 billion in tax by 2013-14. In this Budget, we set out, Department by Department, £16 billion in cuts and efficiencies by 2012-13, on top of which will come £4.5 billion in savings by holding down public sector pay and reforming public sector pensions, as well as £300 million more in welfare reform savings.
	We do not salivate at the prospect of making those savings. We will do them carefully as we preserve our commitment to protecting front-line spending on the NHS, Sure Start, schools and police numbers. Conservative Members have attacked the clarity of the Budget, but the truth is that this week we have learned a lot about the plans of the Conservative party. Last week, the shadow Chief Secretary said to me that it was impossible to deliver £11 billion in efficiencies in two years' time. Yesterday, the shadow Chancellor said he could do it in two weeks' time. We are now being invited to believe that he can save £12 billion from Government budgets, although he cannot say which ones-not to pay down debt, but to pay for a tax cut.
	Even the shadow Chancellor has said that that will cost £5.6 billion, but the Treasury has now costed those increases in national insurance thresholds at £6 billion in 2011-12, £6.3 billion in 2012-13 and 2013-14, and £6.7 billion in 2014-15. Once again he has got his sums wrong. This policy is not a U-turn; it is more of a handbrake turn. Only the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe had the honesty to say that only in the Budget after the election will we know if the national insurance tax cut is affordable. This policy from a shadow Chancellor who told us
	if you want to cut taxes you can't simply rely on more buoyant tax revenues, you can't simply rely on cutting red tape.
	The Conservative party now has something of the order of £34 billion of unfunded tax and spending commitments-and counting. Just to meet those promises alone, let alone cut the deficit faster, it will need new tax rises or deeper cuts to front-line public spending. It is a huge credibility gap, which, frankly, it cannot fill. Despite this spiralling loss of control, it persists with the argument that it can cut the deficit further and faster. But it will not say which Departments it will cut next year. It will not say what it will cut next year. It will not say when it will halve the deficit. It will not say how much further it will cut the structural deficit.
	The shadow Chief Secretary is fond of saying that he will take out the bulk of the structural deficit during the next Parliament. Labour's plans already take out two thirds. Why will not the Conservatives tell us what bulk means. What does it look like? How would we recognise it if we saw it? Why do they insist on it being a secret? Why is this bulk being hidden away from us? After all of these debates, we are none the wiser.
	The Chancellor's Budget set out an argument for fairness. This Budget was a Budget for the many, not the few. That is why the greatest burden will be carried by those with the broadest shoulders. In our deficit reduction plan, 60 per cent. of the £19 billion in new taxes that we need to secure will be paid for by the top 5 per cent. of earners. What a contrast to the Conservative party, which has said that it will cut child tax credits and child trust funds for families on modest incomes, all to pay for a £200,000 tax break for the 3,000 richest estates in Britain.
	Our Budget seeks to extend help where it is needed and to support aspiration, hard work and families. That is why, for those families seeking to buy their first home, the Budget includes a two-year stamp duty holiday for those first-time buyers of properties of up to £250,000 in value. It helps with targeted support for children. The new child tax credit of £4 a week will help families with children aged one and two from April 2012-a point made by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) earlier. It will extend extra help for Britain's 12 million pensioners, with a 2.5 per cent. increase in the basic state pension from April 2010, and extra help again for winter fuel payments.
	What a contrast that is to the policies of the Conservative party. It is not a party of change because it has not changed its party. Five years of rebranding cannot hide its attempt to destroy child tax credits. Just to save the £400 million, it needs to make its own sums add up. It would have to cut credits for people earning as little as £16,000 a year. Its plans to cut child trust funds would rip the heart out of the scheme, taking away a scheme that encourages parents and grandparents to save for a child's future-all to pay for a £200,000 tax cut for the 3,000 richest estates in Britain.
	The truth is, this was a policy authored by the shadow Chancellor. Some shadow Chancellors lack experience and some lack judgment, but this shadow Chancellor lacks both. The truth is that these debates have revealed the Tory party as risky, wrong and unfair. Find me the parent on a modest income who says, Please scrap my child tax credit. Those 3,000 richest estates desperately need an inheritance tax cut. Our plan is for securing the recovery and renewing our country, and I commend the Budget to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That-
	(1) It is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public
	revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance.
	(2) This Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so
	as to provide-
	(a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation,
	(b) for refunding an amount of tax,
	(c) for any relief, other than a relief that-
	(i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and
	(ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.
	 The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order (No. 51(3)).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Instead of reading out each motion in full, I propose to follow the procedure used in recent years-that is to say I will first state the title of the motion and then put simply the Question that the motion be agreed to.

2. income tax (charge, main rates, thresholds and allowances etc for 2010-11)

Resolved,
	That-
	(1) Income tax is charged for the tax year 2010-11.(2) For that tax year-
	(a) the basic rate is 20%,
	(b) the higher rate is 40%, and
	(c) the additional rate is 50%.
	(3) The amounts specified in the following provisions of the Income Tax Act 2007 are the same for the tax year 2010-11 as for the tax year 2009-10-
	(a) sections 10(5) and 12(3) (basic rate limit and starting rate limit for savings),
	(b) sections 35, 36(1), 37(1) and 38(1) (personal allowances and blind person's allowance),
	(c) sections 43, 45(3)(a) and (b) and 46(3)(a) and (b) (tax reductions for married couples and civil partners), and
	(d) sections 36(2), 37(2), 45(4) and 46(4) (adjusted net income limit).
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

3. corporation tax (charge and main rates for financial year 2011)

Question put,
	That-
	(1) Corporation tax is charged for the financial year 2011.(2) For that year the rate of corporation tax is-
	(a) 28% on profits of companies other than ring fence profits, and
	(b) 30% on ring fence profits of companies.
	(3) In paragraph (2) ring fence profits has the same meaning as in Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (see section 276 of that Act).
	 The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 175.

Question accordingly agreed to.

4. Corporation tax (small profits rates and fractions for financial year 2010)

Question put,
	That-
	(1) For the financial year 2010 the small profits rate is-
	(a) 21% on profits of companies other than ring fence profits, and
	(b) 19% on ring fence profits of companies.
	(2) For the purposes of Part 3 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, for that year-
	(a) the standard fraction is 7/400ths, and
	(b) the ring fence fraction is 11/400ths.
	(3) In paragraph (1) ring fence profits has the same meaning as in Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (see section 276 of that Act).
	 The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 230.

Question accordingly agreed to.

5. Stamp duty land tax (relief for first-time buyers)

Resolved,
	That-
	(1) Part 4 of the Finance Act 2003 (stamp duty land tax) is amended as follows.(2) After section 57A insert- 57AA First-time buyers
	(1) A land transaction is exempt from charge under section 55 if-
	(a) it is a relevant acquisition of a major interest in land,
	(b) the land consists entirely of residential property,
	(c) the relevant consideration (see section 55) for the transaction (other than any consisting of rent) is more than £125,000 but not more than £250,000,
	(d) the purchaser, or (if more than one) each of the purchasers, is a first-time buyer who intends to occupy the residential property as the purchaser's only or main residence, and
	(e) (subject to subsection (4)) the transaction is not one of a number of linked transactions.
	(2) In this section first-time buyer means a person who-
	(a) has not previously been a purchaser in relation to a relevant acquisition of a major interest in land which consisted of or included residential property,
	(b) has not previously acquired an equivalent interest in such land under the law of a territory outside the United Kingdom,
	(c) has not previously been, or been one of the persons who was, the person for the purposes of section 71A, 72, 72A or 73 in a case where the first transaction within the meaning of the section concerned was a relevant acquisition of a major interest in land which consisted of or included residential property, and
	(d) would not have been such a person for those purposes in such a case if the provisions mentioned in paragraph (c) had been in force, and had had effect in the territory concerned, at all material times (subject, where required, to appropriate modifications).
	(3) In this section relevant acquisition of a major interest in land means an acquisition of a major interest in land other than-
	(a) the grant of a lease for a term of less than 21 years, or
	(b) the assignment of a lease which has less than 21 years to run.
	(4) Subsection (1)(e) does not prevent a transaction being exempt from charge under section 55 if each of the linked transactions is one the subject-matter of which is land, or an interest in or right over land, which falls within section 116(1)(a), (b) or (c) by reason of its connection with the same building.
	(3) After section 73C insert- 73CA Sections 71A to 73: first-time buyers
	(1) Where section 71A, 72, 72A or 73 applies, the first transaction within the meaning of the section concerned is exempt from charge under section 55 if-
	(a) the transaction is a relevant acquisition of a major interest in land,
	(b) the land consists entirely of residential property,
	(c) the relevant consideration (see section 55) for the transaction (other than any consisting of rent) is more than £125,000 but not more than £250,000,
	(d) the person (within the meaning of the section concerned), or (if more than one) each of them, is a first-time buyer who intends to occupy the residential property as the person's only or main residence, and
	(e) (subject to subsection (3)) the transaction is not one of a number of linked transactions.
	(2) In subsection (1)-
	first-time buyer, and
	relevant acquisition of a major interest in land,
	have the same meaning as in section 57AA.
	(3) Subsection (4) of section 57AA applies for the purposes of this section.
	(4) In section 110 (approval of regulations under general power), insert at the end-
	 (6) This section does not apply to regulations containing only provision varying section 57AA or 73CA, or paragraph 15 of Schedule 9, which does not increase any person's liability to tax.
	(5) In Schedule 9 (right to buy, shared ownership leases etc), insert at the end-
	First-time buyers
	15 (1) This paragraph applies where-
	(a) a lease is granted as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) of paragraph 2 and the conditions in sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph are met but no election is made for tax to be charged in accordance with that paragraph,
	(b) a lease is granted as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) of paragraph 4 and the conditions in sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph are met but no election is made for tax to be charged in accordance with that paragraph,
	(c) paragraph 4A applies in relation to the acquisition of an interest (but the acquisition is not exempt from charge by virtue of subparagraph (2) of that paragraph),
	(d) a shared ownership trust is declared but no election is made for tax to be charged in accordance with paragraph 9, or
	(e) an equity-acquisition payment is made under a shared ownership trust (but the equity acquisition payment, and the consequential increase in the purchaser's beneficial interest, are not exempt from charge by virtue of paragraph 10).
	(2) Neither section 57AA nor section 73CA applies in relation to-
	(a) the acquisition of the lease,
	(b) the acquisition of the interest,
	(c) the declaration of the shared ownership trust, or
	(d) the equity-acquisition payment and the consequential increase in the purchaser's beneficial interest.
	(6) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to any land transaction of which the effective date is on or after 25 March 2010 but before 25 March 2012.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

6. Stamp duty land tax (rate for residential property where consideration over £1m)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made increasing the rate of stamp duty land tax for residential property in cases where the relevant consideration is more than £1 million.

7. Inheritance tax (rate bands)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made disapplying the Table substituted in Schedule 1 to the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 by section 4 of the Finance Act 2007 and providing for section 8 of that Act not to have effect by virtue of any difference between the retail prices index for the month of September in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 and the previous September.

8. Alcoholic liquor duties (rates)

Question put,
	That-
	(1) The Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 is amended as follows.(2) In section 5 (rate of duty on spirits), for £22.64 substitute £23.80.(3) In section 36(1AA)(a) (standard rate of duty on beer), for £16.47 substitute £17.32.(4) In section 62(1A) (rates of duty on cider)-
	(a) in paragraph (a) (rate of duty per hectolitre in the case of sparkling cider of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent), for £207.20 substitute £217.83,
	(b) in paragraph (b) (rate of duty per hectolitre in the case of cider of a strength exceeding 7.5 per cent which is not sparkling cider), for £47.77 substitute £54.04, and
	(c) in paragraph (c) (rate of duty per hectolitre in any other case), for £31.83 substitute £36.01.
	(5) For the table in Schedule 1 substitute-
	
		
			  Table of Rates of Duty on Wine and Made-Wine Part 1 Wine or Made-Wine of a Strength not Exceeding 22 per cent 
			  Description of wine or made-wine  Rates of duty per hectolitre 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength not exceeding 4 per cent 69.32 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 4 per cent but not exceeding 5.5 per cent 95.33 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent but not exceeding 15 per cent and not being sparkling 225.00 
			 Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength exceeding 5.5 per cent but less than 8.5 per cent 217.83 
			 Sparkling wine or sparkling made-wine of a strength of  8.5 per cent or of a strength exceeding 8.5 per cent but not exceeding 15 per cent 288.20 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 15 per cent but not exceeding 22 per cent 299.97 
		
	
	
		
			  Part 2 Wine or Made-Wine of a Strength Exceeding 22 per cent 
			  Description of Wine or Made-Wine  Rates of Duty per Litre of Alcohol in Wine or Made-Wine £ 
			 Wine or made-wine of a strength exceeding 22 per cent 23.80. 
		
	
	(6) The amendments made by this Resolution come into force on 29 March 2010. And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	 The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 223.

Question accordingly agreed to.

9. Tobacco products duty (rates)

Resolved,
	That-
	(1) For the table in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 substitute-
	
		
			  Table 
			 1. Cigarettes An amount equal to 24 per cent of the retail price plus £119.03 per thousand cigarettes 
			 2. Cigars £180.28 per kilogram 
			 3. Hand-rolling tobacco £129.59 per kilogram 
			 4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco £79.26 per kilogram. 
		
	
	(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) comes into force at 6 pm on 24 March 2010.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

10. Vehicle excise duty (motorcycle rates)

Resolved,
	That-
	(1) In paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (annual rates of duty: motorcycles)-
	(a) in paragraph (c) (motorbicycle which has engine with cylinder capacity exceeding 400cc but not exceeding 600cc), for £48 substitute £50, and
	(b) in paragraph (d) (motorcycle not within any of paragraphs (a) to (c)), for £66 substitute £70.
	(2) The amendments made by paragraph (1) have effect in relation to licences taken out on or after 1 April 2010.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

11. Fuel duties (rates and rebates from April 2010)

Question put,
	That-
	(1) The Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 is amended as follows.(2) In section 6(1A) (main rates)-
	(a) in paragraph (a) (unleaded petrol), for £0.5619 substitute £0.5719,
	(b) in paragraph (aa) (aviation gasoline), for £0.3457 substitute £0.3835,
	(c) in paragraph (b) (light oil other than unleaded petrol or aviation gasoline), for £0.6591 substitute £0.6691, and
	(d) in paragraph (c) (heavy oil), for £0.5619 substitute £0.5719.
	(3) In section 6AA(3) (rate of duty on biodiesel), for shall be £0.3619 a litre. substitute is the same as that in the case of heavy oil.(4) In section 6AB (rate of duty on bioblend)-
	(a) in subsection (3), for the words after is the substitute same as that in the case of heavy oil., and
	(b) omit subsections (4) and (5).
	(5) In section 6AD(3) (rate of duty on bioethanol), for shall be £0.3619 a litre. substitute is the same as that in the case of unleaded petrol.(6) In section 6AE (rate of duty on blends of bioethanol and hydrocarbon oil)-
	(a) in subsection (3), for the words after bioethanol blend substitute is the same as that in the case of unleaded petrol., and
	(b) omit subsections (4) and (5).
	(7) In section 8(3) (road fuel gas)-
	(a) in paragraph (a) (natural road fuel gas), for £0.2216 substitute £0.2360, and
	(b) in paragraph (b) (other road fuel gas), for £0.2767 substitute £0.3053.
	(8) In section 11(1) (rebate on heavy oil)-
	(a) in paragraph (a) (fuel oil), for £0.1037 substitute £0.1055, and
	(b) in paragraph (b) (gas oil), for £0.1080 substitute £0.1099.
	(9) In section 14(1) (rebate on light oil for use as furnace fuel), for £0.1037 substitute £0.1055.(10) In section 14A(2) (rebate on certain biodiesel), for £0.1080 substitute £0.1099.(11) The following are revoked-
	(a) the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Hydrogenation of Biomass) (Reliefs)
	(b) the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties (Sulphur-free Diesel) (Hydrogenation of Biomass) (Reliefs) (Amendment) Regulations 2007 (S.I. 2007/2406), and
	(c) regulation 11 of the Hydrocarbon Oil, Biofuels and Other Fuel Substitutes (Determination of Composition of a Substance and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/753).
	(12) The amendments made by this Resolution come into force on 1 April 2010.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
	 The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 63.

Question accordingly agreed to.

12. Fuel duties (further changes in rates and rebates)

Question put,
	That provision may be made amending rates of duty and rebates in the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979 from 1 October 2010 and 1 January 2011.
	 The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 61.

Question accordingly agreed to.

13. Air passenger duty (rates)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the rates of air passenger duty.

14. Landfill tax (standard rate)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the standard rate of landfill tax.

15. Aggregates levy (rate)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the rate of aggregates levy.

16. Climate change levy (rates)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the rates of climate change levy.

17. Amusement machine licence duty (rates)

Resolved,
	That-
	(1) In section 23(2) of the Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 (amount of duty payable on amusement machine licence), for the table substitute-
	
		
			  Table 
			  Months for which licence granted  Category A  Category B1  Category B2  Category B3  Category B4  Category C 
			   £  £  £  £  £  £ 
			 1 520 265 210 210 190 85 
			 2 1,015 505 395 395 360 150 
			 3 1,520 760 605 605 545 225 
			 4 2,025 1015 800 800 725 300 
			 5 2,540 1,270 1,000 1,000 900 375 
			 6 3,050 1,520 1,195 1,195 1,085 450 
			 7 3,555 1,775 1,395 1,395 1,265 520 
			 8 4,060 2,025 1,600 1,600 1,450 600 
			 9 4,570 2,285 1,800 1,800 1,630 675 
			 10 5,075 2,540 1,995 1,995 1,810 750 
			 11 5,580 2,795 2,195 2,195 1,990 820 
			 12 5,805 2,905 2,285 2,285 2,075 860. 
		
	
	(2) The amendment made by paragraph (1) has effect in relation to cases where the application for the amusement machine licence is received by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs after 4 pm on 26 March 2010.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

18. Bank payroll tax

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for and in connection with bank payroll tax.

19. Landline duty

Question put,
	That provision may be made for and in connection with landline duty.
	 The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 168.

Question accordingly agreed to.

20. Sideways relief etc

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Income Tax Act 2007.

21. Property loss relief

Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Income Tax Act 2007.

22. Capital allowance buying

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Part 2 of the Capital Allowances Act 2001 in relation to cases where there is a qualifying change in relation to a company.

23. Leased assets

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about leased assets.

24. Cushion gas

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about cushion gas.

25. Sales of lessors

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about sales of lessors.

26. Charities and community amateur sports clubs

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made in relation to charities and community amateur sports clubs.

27. Remittance basis: meaning of relevant person

Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending section 809M of the Income Tax Act 2007.

28. Foreign currency bank accounts

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about foreign currency bank accounts.

29. Reliefs and reductions for foreign tax

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about arrangements that increase reliefs or reductions for foreign tax.

30. Chargeable gains: transfer of assets to non-resident company

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about chargeable gains in relation to transfers of assets to companies not resident in the United Kingdom.

31. Transactions in securities

Resolved,
	That provision may be made amending Chapter 1 of Part 13 of the Income Tax Act 2007.

32. Approved CSOP schemes

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about the kinds of shares to which approved CSOP schemes can apply.

33. Unauthorised unit trusts

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about the taxation of unit holders of unauthorised unit trusts.

34. Index-linked gilt-edged securities

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made in relation to index-linked gilt-edged securities.

35. Approved share incentive plans

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about approved share incentive plans.

36. Release and writing off of debts

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about the release and writing off of debts.

37. Repos

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending paragraph 4 of Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 2007 and section 550 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009.

38. Risk transfer schemes

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about risk transfer schemes.

39. Insurance companies (apportionment)

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for the apportionment of asset value increases.

40. Pensions (special annual allowance charge)

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending Schedule 35 to the Finance Act 2009.

41. Value added tax (reverse charge)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made for and in connection with extending section 55A of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to supplies of services.

42. Insurance premium tax (separate contracts)

Resolved,
	That-
	(1) Part 3 of the Finance Act 1994 (insurance premium tax) is amended as follows.(2) Section 72 (meaning of premium) is amended as follows.(3) After subsection (1A) insert-
	(1AA) A contract (the relevant contract) is not to be regarded as a separate contract for the purposes of subsection (1A) above if conditions A to D are met.
	(1AB) Condition A is that the insured is an individual (I) and enters into the taxable insurance contract in a personal capacity.
	(1AC) Condition B is that I-
	(a) is required to enter into the relevant contract by, or as a condition of entering into, the taxable insurance contract, or
	(b) would be unlikely to enter into the relevant contract without also entering into the taxable insurance contract.
	(1AD) Condition C is that-
	(a) the amount charged to I under the relevant contract in respect of any particular services is not open to negotiation by I, or
	(b) the other terms on which particular services are to be provided to I under the relevant contract are not open to such negotiation.
	(1AE) Condition D is that the amount charged to I under the taxable insurance contract is arrived at without a comprehensive assessment having been undertaken of the individual circumstances of I which might affect the level of risk.
	(4) After subsection (9) insert-
	(9A) Provision may be made by order amending subsections (1AA) to (1AE) above.
	(5) In section 74(4) and (6) (orders which need to be approved by House of Commons), for or 71 substitute , 71 or 72.(6) The amendment made by paragraph (3) has effect in relation to payments made on or after 24 March 2010.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

43. Inheritance tax (interests in possession and reversionary interests)

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about interests in possession and reversionary interests.

44. Stamp duty reserve tax (depositary receipt and clearance services systems)

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about stamp duty reserve tax in relation to the transfer of securities issued in connection with depositary receipt systems and clearance services systems.

45. Stamp duty land tax (partnerships)

Resolved,
	That-
	(1) In section 75C of the Finance Act 2003 (SDLT anti-avoidance: supplemental)-
	(a) in subsection (8), omit paragraph (b) and the and before it, and
	(b) after that subsection insert-
	(8A) Nothing in Part 3 of Schedule 15 applies to the notional transaction under section 75A.
	(2) The amendments made by paragraph (1) have effect in relation to any notional transaction of which the effective date is on or after 24 March 2010.(3) But those amendments do not have effect in relation to a notional transaction if any of the scheme transactions is-
	(a) completed before that date,
	(b) effected in pursuance of a contract entered into and substantially performed before that date, or
	(c) effected in pursuance of a contract entered into before that date and not excluded by paragraph (4).
	(4) A scheme transaction effected in pursuance of a contract entered into before 24 March 2010 is excluded by this paragraph if-
	(a) there is any variation of the contract, or assignment (or assignation) of rights under the contract, on or after 24 March 2010,
	(b) the transaction is effected in consequence of the exercise on or after that date of any option, right of pre-emption or similar right, or
	(c) it is a land transaction and on or after that date there is an assignment (or assignation), subsale or other transaction relating to the whole or part of the subject-matter of the contract as a result of which a person other than the purchaser under the contract becomes entitled to call for a conveyance.
	And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

46. Accounting standards

Resolved,
	That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about cases where there is a change in accounting standards in relation to loan relationships or derivative contracts.

47. Furnished holiday lettings

Question put,
	That provision may be made about furnished holiday lettings.
	 The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 219.

Question accordingly agreed to.

48. FSCS intervention in relation to insurance contracts

Resolved,
	That provision may be made about interventions under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme in relation to protected contracts of insurance.

49. Alcoholic liquor duties (cider)

Resolved,
	That provision may be made for and in connection with amending the definition of cider in the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979.

50. Relief from tax (incidental and consequential charges)

Resolved,
	That it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) that may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation.
	PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION): That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year-
	(a) provision for corporation tax to be charged for the financial year 2011,
	(b) provision increasing the rate of stamp duty land tax for residential property in cases where the relevant consideration is more than £1 million,
	(c) provision about the standard rate of landfill tax,
	(d) provision about the rate of aggregates levy,
	(e) provision about the rates of climate change levy,
	(f) provision for and in connection with the high income excess relief charge,
	(g) provision about taxable benefits in respect of cars with a CO2 emissions figure,
	(h) provision amending section 317 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, and
	(i) provision exempting certain persons from income tax in respect of certain income arising in connection with the 2011 Champions League final.
	 Ordered,
	That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions;
	That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Hilary Benn, Secretary John Denham, Secretary Ed Miliband, Secretary Yvette Cooper, Mr. Liam Byrne, Mr. Pat McFadden, Miss Sarah McCarthy-Fry, Mr. Ian Pearson and Mr. Stephen Timms introduce the Bill.

Finance Bill

Presentation and First Reading
	Mr. Stephen Timms accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 100) with explanatory notes (Bill 100-EN).

PERSONAL CARE AT HOME BILL

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Personal Care at Home Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 14 December 2009 (Personal Care at Home Bill (Programme)):
	 Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at this day's sitting.
	 Subsequent stages
	2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.

Personal Care at Home Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 1, 2 and 4. If the House agrees to these amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
	I should also inform the House that Mr. Speaker has given careful consideration to Lords amendment 3 to the Bill. He is satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by a resolution of the House. Therefore, when it is reached, I will announce that it is deemed to be disagreed to in accordance with paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 78. It is therefore not available for debate.

Clause 1
	  
	Free provision of personal care at home

Phil Hope: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment in lieu.
	Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
	Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to disagree.

Phil Hope: This Bill, as the House knows, reaches out to some of the most vulnerable people in our community. We want to ensure that they can benefit from these reforms. I can therefore confirm to the House that we will look to offer free personal care at home for those with highest needs from April 2011.
	However, we have listened to local government and we have listened to the concerns expressed in another place. By accepting Lords amendment 2, and given our intention not to move the amendment in lieu, we are recognising that a new Parliament may wish to confirm the arrangements for implementing this important first step towards a future national care service. Local authorities will still have the time that they have told us they need to implement the legislation most effectively, subject to Parliamentary approval of the commencement order.
	I now turn to the Lords amendments. Mr. Speaker has designated Lords amendments 1 and 4 as involving privilege because they would alter the financial arrangements made by this House. However, we wish to agree with Lords amendment 2, as this recognises the collective desire for more time to implement these measures and more time to scrutinise them. It does so by requiring a commencement order to be laid and approved by both Houses before the Act can come into force.
	Lords Amendment 1, in its current wording, would delay implementation of the scheme until June 2011 at the earliest. This is because it would prevent regulations from being made until 1 April 2011 at the earliest. We therefore disagree with Lords amendment 1, because people in many places say that April 2011 implementation is what they want.
	Lords Amendment 4 would insert what is known as a sunset clause, and would require the Act resulting from this Bill to lapse at the end of two years after Royal Assent unless there were regulations in force. In addition to the question of privilege, Lords amendments 1 and 4 are inappropriate and unnecessary. They seek to delay implementation of the Bill beyond what is reasonable.
	Today's White Paper makes it clear that the personal care offer enabled by this Bill is an integral part of the staged route to a national care service. However, we accept that a future Parliament may want to confirm the arrangements for implementation and will therefore accept Lords amendment 2. Lords amendment 2 would require that a commencement order be made before the provisions of the Bill could come into force. Additionally, such an order would need to be approved by the affirmative procedure, with consideration in both this House and the other place. This would give adequate time for a future Parliament to consider the measures, or leave them free to put the Act into force immediately if they so wished.
	This Bill has been subject to rigorous debate both in this House and in another place. By disagreeing with amendments 1 and 4 on the grounds of privilege, I am not in any way intending to criticise the quality of debate in the Lords, which was of a consistently high standard and led us to include transitional portability of assessment. I hope that these proposals now clearly show that we have tried to achieve a consensus on the way forward.

Stephen O'Brien: It is absolutely clear that the Government are keen to get this Bill through, and we too are extremely keen to see social care reformed. Although we have proposed improving amendments during the passage of the Bill, let me stress that we have never opposed it. We believe that the noble Lords, on both sides of their House, who have amended the Bill have done so for the better and for the betterment of social care provision. They have done their constitutional job, and they have done it well, so I congratulate their lordships.
	As much as I would relish the thought of debating the Bill through the night, and as much as these amendments represent the usual, slight embarrassment and defeats for the Government in the Lords, at the hands of those on both sides of that Chamber, including their own, I start by saying that the Government can have their Bill, because they have taken on board the advice of the Lords and because, in particular, they are supporting Lords amendment 2, which offers the opportunity and time for the provisions to be reconsidered in a future Parliament.
	I pay tribute, however, to the nearly 6 million social care users in this country-a catch-all category that speaks of conditions from dementia to disabilities of which we will all be aware-and to the 6 million carers in this country, who, alongside the professionals in local authorities and the care services industry, work so tirelessly for the vulnerable and the less vulnerable, who just need a little help. They should be at the forefront of our minds as we consider the Bill tonight.
	On the back of that, I would say very quickly that the Bill actually helps very few of those people. The Secretary of State has paraded the figure of 400,000, but the free personal care section is aimed only at 276,000, of whom well over half-166,000-already receive free care. So the policy helps 110,000, when social care users will number 6 million by 2012. According to the Government's estimate, the provisions will take just 2,384 people out of care homes-one of the stated aims of the policy-out of a care home population of roughly 500,000.
	I shall briefly put this in context. Earlier today, by way of a written ministerial statement, the Secretary of State announced the social care White Paper. This is not the moment to suggest either that it would have been more helpful to have an oral statement or that, during Health questions, he did not actually rule out the death tax option. However, it is important to recognise that the White Paper recommends that we have yet another commission, like the one ignored by the Labour Government in 2000. It states that the issue will be dealt with in the Parliament after next, but the Secretary of State pledged unstoppable momentum for reform in the next Parliament. Indeed, on Labour's timetable, reform will begin in 2017-20 years after Tony Blair's promise to end the scandal of people selling their homes to pay for the their care.
	The White Paper does not mention costs, which no serious debate would ignore. It states that the Government have chosen the comprehensive funding model, but it is not actually a funding model; it is a delivery model. The funding is the question: where does the money come from? The flagship policy, which was taken from our last manifesto-we have, obviously, moved on further-is to fund the cost of people's care after they have spent two years in a care home, on the basis that they will avoid what the Secretary of State calls catastrophic costs. However, those two years will cost the individual £52,000. In that context, I hope that he will recognise that £52,000 is catastrophic, compared with the £8,000 we have proposed.
	We have listened carefully to what the Government have done, which is not to move the earlier manuscript amendment and to accept the advice of the Lords in amendment 2, which affords the time that is required and was rightly requested in order for the costs to be properly evaluated and for local authorities to have the time that they have politely said that they need.

John Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen O'Brien: I will briefly give way, but we need to make progress.

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend contrast the consensus, which he supports, on care of these very vulnerable people with the fact that, in constituencies up and down the country, the Labour party is writing to them, saying that were there a Conservative Government, many of their benefits would be taken away? Is that not a disgraceful use of Government powers in dealing with vulnerable people?

Stephen O'Brien: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Indeed, it would be a disgrace were anybody to claim that any Opposition party, including the Conservative party, had suggested removing pensioner benefits. In the same way, it is not us who have suggested removing cash benefits, which are vital for those vulnerable people and their carers, in the form of either the attendance allowance or the disability living allowance for the under or over-65s, either now or going forward. My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and, having placed what I have said on the record, I hope that we will have no more such suggestions, in what I hope can be a clean campaign as we face the electorate.

William Cash: Will my hon. Friend be good enough to confirm that the Government have in fact performed a massive climbdown? Their proposals, as expressed on the Today programme this morning by the Secretary of State, indicate that they do not quite appreciate the extent to which they have done a massive U-turn. Does my hon. Friend have any idea of when the appointed day on which they will bring in the proposals is likely to be, because after all, they might not even be the Government then?

Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend makes the point, which I think the Government accept, that they have sought to introduce the Bill at breakneck speed. We have often discussed the provenance of the Bill, which was quickly put together for the Prime Minister's conference speech last September. The Government then produced a Green Paper, yet the principles that underlie this Bill seem to fly in the face of the principles that they ruled out in that Green Paper, and only today has a White Paper been produced. The costs have been estimated in a way that they first had to be withdrawn, and they remain uncertain. Many local authorities signed a letter to the newspapers to suggest that they had not had a chance to get the scheme ready for the time proposed. Ultimately, therefore, my hon. Friend is right that there has been some concern, but it is important that we should portray what the Government have done as an attempt at an honourable retreat, rather than as a U-turn.
	Above all, local authorities will have a chance to take advice and make the necessary estimation of the cost if the Bill is introduced by way of a commencement order under the affirmative resolution procedure, as would be the case under Lords amendment 2, which the Government have rightly agreed should be agreed. That will give whoever forms the next Government the opportunity to decide how the Bill sits in the context of the policies that are developed going forward, and whether it should form part of a retrospectively justifying stage 1 of a White Paper or what we hope will be a much speedier process of total social care reform, although we shall have to wait and see what the judgment of the electorate is in the forthcoming general election.
	With those comments I am happy to welcome the approach that the Government have taken, in having taken the advice of the Lords and deciding to take the process forward in the way that they have.

Norman Lamb: We, too, have listened carefully to what the Government have proposed, and we accept the position. We are critical of the Bill for the same reasons that the noble Lords Lipsey and Warner set out in the other place. We feel that it cuts against the process of reform that was first set out in the Green Paper. We do not see the Bill as a bridge to reform, as the Government have described it, but, at the very least, the amendments before us offer an opportunity to pause for reflection in the next Parliament. Likewise, we, too, take the view that we must move to implement a fundamental reform of social care in the next Parliament. It cannot wait until the Parliament after that.
	It is for that reason that I have concerns about the White Paper, which was published today, in that it delays a fundamental reform of the system, a reform that we think is long overdue. There are things in the White Paper that we strongly support, particularly the much closer integration of health and social care, the focus on prevention and ensuring the maximum choice and freedom for individuals in how the money is used, but we believe that there is an overwhelming case for getting on with reform, which we would want to see early in the next Parliament. Following the election we will continue to make the case for the three parties to work together to secure that reform as quickly as possible.
	 Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
	 Lords amendment 2 agreed to , with Commons privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment. .

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I advised the House earlier, Mr. Speaker has given careful consideration to Lords amendment 3 to the Bill. He is satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue which is not authorised by a resolution of this House. Therefore under paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 78, Lords amendment 3 is deemed to be disagreed to.
	 Lords amendment 3 deemed to be disagreed to (Standing Order No. 78(3)).
	 Lords amendment 4 disagreed to.
	 Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 3 and 4;
	That Mary Creagh, Phil Hope, Norman Lamb, Mr. Stephen O'Brien and Phil Wilson be members of the Committee;
	That Phil Hope be the Chair of the Committee;
	That three be the quorum of the Committee;
	That the Committee do withdraw immediately.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Housing) (Fire Safety) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.
	That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Local Government) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 10 February, be approved.
	That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Education) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.
	That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Legislative Competence) (Culture and Other Fields) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.- ( Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Children and Young Persons

That the draft Children Act 2004 Information Database (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.- ( Mark Tami.)
	 The Deputy Speaker's opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 7 April (Standing Order No. 41A).
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Charities

That the draft Charities (Disclosure of Revenue and Customs Information to the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.- ( Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118 (6)),

Pensions

That the draft Financial Assistance Scheme (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Public Passenger Transport

That the draft Concessionary Bus Travel Act 2007 (Variation of Reimbursement and Other Administrative Arrangements) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Criminal Law

That the draft Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice for Interviews of Witnesses Notified by Accused) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Building Societies

That the draft Building Societies (Insolvency and Special Administration) (Amendment) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Education

That the draft Local Education Authorities and Children's Services Authorities (Integration of Functions) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 10 February, be approved.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Social Security

That the draft Jobseeker's Allowance (Work for Your Benefit Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Additional Paternity Leave (Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.
	That the draft Additional Statutory Paternity Pay (Adoptions from Overseas) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Building Societies

That the draft Building Societies (Financial Assistance) Order 2010, which was laid before this House on 1 March, be approved.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Access to Justice

That the Legal Services Commission Funding Code: Criteria and Procedures, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 March, be approved.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Legal Services Commission

That the draft Criminal Defence Service (Information Requests) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 27 January, be approved ).
	That the draft Criminal Defence Service (Representation Orders: Appeals, etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.- (Mark Tami.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order, 22 March, and Standing Order No. 118 (6)),

Financial Assistance to Industry

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay, by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, sums exceeding £10 million and up to a cumulative total of £380 million in respect of a guarantee which may be provided by the Secretary of State to the European Investment Bank in the event of a European Investment Bank loan to Ford Motor Company Limited.- (Mark Tami.)

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119 (11)),
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 7110/10, Commission Communication on Europe 2020-a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, No. 6018/10, Commission staff working document on Europe 2020-public consultation-first overview of responses, and No. 6037/10, Commission staff working document-Lisbon Strategy evaluation document; and supports the Government's approach to promoting an EU strategy focused on delivering strong, sustainable and balanced growth.- ( Mark Tami.)
	 The Deputy Speaker's opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 7 April (Standing Order No. 41A).

PETITIONS

Planning and Development (Hadleigh, Essex)

Bob Spink: Kelly and Ian King and many other excellent caring local people have compiled this petition in response to a development proposal that is entirely out of keeping with and intrusive on their environment, putting intolerable pressures on our roads and public services and therefore the residents' quality of life.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of local residents and others objecting to the back garden development of eight flats in two blocks at 21 Lynton Road Hadleigh,
	Declares that the proposed development is out of character with the area, has insufficient parking and garden amenity space, would make an unacceptable imposition on the street scene, is by its bulk and design over obtrusive, would make unacceptable impositions on local road congestion, and on fresh water demand and sewage and surface water disposal, would make local road junctions serving the streets more dangerous, does not provide suitable access to the site from the road and would create disturbance, noise and other problems for local residents; further notes that there is sufficient previously developed land to provide all the housing needs for this region without such intensive building in the green belt or back gardens and that the council is under no obligation or pressure from the Government to vote for this application if it chooses not to.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to press Castle Point Borough Council, and the Conservative Council Group, to ensure this application is decided by councillors who can be held to account, rather than officers, and that it is rejected.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000798]

Planning and Development (Benfleet, Essex)

Bob Spink: This petition was organised by Brian Keeler, a superb campaigner, well known and valued by his community for the work he does. He is campaigning against totally inappropriate development, which I urge councillors to reject. The petition is a long one; it will be printed in  Hansard.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Petition of Brian Keeler, the residents of Castle Point and others,
	 Declares that they object to the proposed development of the area between Nos. 18 to 32 High Road, Benfleet to construct a building providing 5 Retail Units at Ground Level, 22 Parking Spaces, 2 Offices, plus 12 x 2 bed flats and 2 x 1 bed flats at 1st and 2nd floor levels; that this development should be rejected because the proposed, much larger building would dominate and overlook existing properties, bring unacceptable problems including inadequate parking, fails to show where access to and from the site parking area, bearing in mind an existing public parking area in Adelaide Gardens, vague refuse storage area, restricted sight lines for emerging traffic from St Mary's Drive, reduction of the pavement, loss of light entering adjoining buildings and relocation of the heritage telephone kiosk and post box; further declares that this development would further spoil the Conservation Area and create unacceptable stress on the existing infrastructure, including roads, schools, rail, doctors, dentists, etc.; that for these and many other valid planning reasons this application be rejected by the local Councillors, elected to represent their constituents, and that given the importance to the wider community of protecting this unique Conservation Area, unelected and unaccountable officers must properly and widely consult the public before permitting such developments.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to press Castle Point Borough Council, and all Councillors, to reject this planning application and to substantially protect the unique St Mary's Conservation area.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000799]

Bus Service (Essex)

Bob Spink: This is my third petition, which you will be glad to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is my last in this Parliament. It was produced by Carol Tebbutt, the wonderful people of Age Concern and others in Castle Point who want to see an improved bus service. My goodness, we all want to see that. The petition is long and will be printed in  Hansard.
	 Following is the full text of the petition:
	 [ The Petition of Carol Tebbutt, members of Age Concern Canvey Island, the residents of Castle Point and others,
	 Declares that they object to the reduction in frequency of low-floor buses operating on the number 21 bus route between Southend and Canvey Island, operated by FirstGroup; that this reduction in the number of low-floor buses discriminates against passengers with greater accessibility needs, including the elderly, infirm, adults accompanying small children and those with limited mobility; further, that this route is used by residents travelling to and from Southend Hospital and requiring frequent, accessible, reliable and comfortable bus services; that for these and many other valid reasons only low-floor buses be operated by FirstGroup on this route and at greater frequency.
	 The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to press FirstGroup to operate only low-floor buses and at shorter intervals on the number 21 bus route between Southend and Canvey Island.
	 And the Petitioners remain, etc. ]
	[P000800]

High School Provision (Stoke-on-Trent South)

Robert Flello: Stoke-on-Trent city council has today turned a £250 million Building Schools for the Future success story into a disaster, but all is not lost. The council-Conservative-run at the moment-can still do the right thing. In line with what the Schools Minister has repeatedly said, we can have a two-school solution-keeping a community school at Mitchell High, while building the new 20:20 academy on the Longton High site. I have with me tonight the start of a petition, which is still gathering hundreds of signatures. The petition calls for the two-school solution that the people of Stoke-on-Trent want. It reads:
	The Petition of the undersigned,
	Declares that there is a desire among the people of the city of Stoke-on-Trent that there should be a High School serving the communities of Longton, Meir, Weston Coyney, Normacot, Dresden, and other areas in that vicinity.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to take steps to instruct Stoke-on-Trent City Council that it may, as part of the BSF programme, have a two-school solution to the issue of the location of the new 20:20 Academy, thereby building a new school on the fields adjacent to Longton High School and continuing to use the Mitchell High School.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000801]

Hunting with Dogs

Michael Jabez Foster: I have been asked to present the petition of Mr. Kim Stallwood, a passionate animal welfare advocate, and some 4,000 of my constituents, bringing attention to proposals to bring back the barbaric blood sport of fox hunting. The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Hastings and Rye and others,
	Declares that the petitioners believe that hunting with dogs is cruel; further declares that the Petitioners oppose the efforts of local Conservative Parliamentary Candidate Amber Rudd and the Conservative Party to have the ban repealed, further declares that the Petitioners support the Hunting Act 2004 and the Back the Ban campaign; and that the Petitioners support Michael Foster, MP for Hastings and Rye, in his campaign to keep hunting illegal.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons reject any proposal to legalise hunting with dogs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000802]

Gypsies and Travellers (Security of Tenure)

Julie Morgan: My first petition was organised by Cathay Birch.
	Unlike other social tenants, Gypsies and Travellers on rented pitches have no rights to security of tenure, and both the European Court of Human Rights and the House of Lords have said that that amounts to a breach of human rights. The Government have recognised that, and have said that they will amend the law by including council sites in the Mobile Homes Act 1983. However, the Government have not had the time to introduce the necessary legislation.
	The petition was signed by 608 people and states:
	The Petition of Cathay Birch and others,
	Declares that the European Court of Human Rights (in 2004) and the House of Lords (in 2008) have stated that the situation regarding the lack of security of tenure for Gypsies and Travellers on rented pitches amounted to a breach of Human Rights; that the Government said they would amend the law by including Council sites within the provisions of the Mobile Homes Act 1983; that the Government then released an e-mail to certain organisations on 10th February 2010 saying that they no longer had time to introduce the necessary amending powers; and that this has happened despite the fact that security of tenure could be introduced with a few simple sentences;
	Further declares that the Petitioners believe the Government should take action now to resolve this breach of Human Rights by amending legislation to ensure Gypsies and Travellers on rented pitches have the same rights to security of tenure as other social housing tenants.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government immediately to bring forward proposals to amend the Act of Parliament pertaining to security of tenure of Gypsies and Travellers on rented pitches to ensure that security of tenure is given.
	[P000804]

Proposed Eviction (Dale Farm and Hovefields, Essex)

Julie Morgan: My second petition, to which there are 15 signatures, concerns the proposed eviction of Gypsy and Traveller families at Dale Farm and Hovefields by Basildon council. It was organised by Ann Dean. The families include invalid schoolchildren, some of whom have special needs, elderly people, and many who are living on their own land. The petition states:
	The Petition of families at Dale Farm and Hovefields to be evicted, their supporters and others,
	Declares that roughly 100 families at Dale Farm and Hovefields are to be evicted by Basildon Council in Essex at a cost of over £2 million; that most of the families to be evicted by Basildon Council have lived on their own land for about seven years, and they include invalids who will be separated from their Carers and school children, some of whom have Special Needs, who on the roadside will be deprived of their Human Right to Education; that this mass eviction will be carried out by a firm of Bailiffs whose brutality was condemned by the High Court, and therefore breaks the solemn signed undertaking by Basildon Council to the High Court, to only use Bailiffs of previous good conduct;
	Further declares that the Petitioners believe Basildon Council is also breaking the terms and the purpose of sections 225 and 226 of the 2004 Housing Act, which say that every local housing authority must prepare a strategy to meet the accommodation needs of the gypsies and travellers residing in or resorting to their area, whilst in fact Basildon Council says that any new pitches which it allows will not be reserved for local Travellers who are already residing in the area; that this contradicts their statement that the new pitches will be allocated by their housing policy as the 1996 Housing Act normally requires a local connection; that it also means that the local Travellers may have to live by the roadside although the 2004 Housing Act promised them legal pitches by 2011.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons debate this matter; and urge the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: to exercise his powers under s225 and 226 of the 2004 Housing Act and s 8 of the 1985 Housing Act (c. 68) to see that all local authorities, including Basildon, find enough affordable pitches for all their local Travellers; to urge all local authorities to show humanity by following the decision of the Court of Appeal in 2008 in the Wychavon case, by not evicting Travellers, especially those on their own land, until an alternative affordable site is available for them, as was intended by the 2004 Housing Act to happen by 2011; to ask local authorities to follow the High Court decisions v Basildon in 2000 and 2004 that even normal school children should not be evicted; to ask Basildon to follow the High Court in the Margaret Price case by not offering Homeless Travellers only bricks and mortar, but affordable pitches; and to ask Basildon not to evict the sick, or the elderly or break its undertaking to the High Court not to use Bailiffs of bad conduct.
	[P000803]

Hunting with Dogs

David Anderson: It gives me great pleasure to present a petition on behalf of Mrs. Shirley Milne, 519 residents of Blaydon, and others, which states:
	The Petition of residents of Blaydon Constituency and others,
	Declares that the Petitioners agree with a ban on hunting with dogs, and believe the ban should be enforced rigorously and effectively; further declares that the Petitioners are opposed to any efforts to overturn the ban and allow the re-introduction of hunting with dogs in the future.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons reject any proposal to legalise hunting with dogs and asks the Government to reaffirm its opposition to hunting with dogs.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000805]

Tamil People (Sri Lanka)

Andrew Pelling: I am grateful to the House for its courtesy in allowing me to present so many petitions at the same time. The first reads as follows:
	The Petition of the people of Croydon,
	Declares that following the end of hostilities in Sri Lanka the detained Tamil people have been held against their will, without any freedom of movement in unsanitary IDP camps.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HM Government to press the Sri Lankan government for the implementation of a thorough going release of Tamil people in IDP camps and the commencement of talks to bring home rule to Tamil lands to the benefit of all Sri Lanka.
	[P000806]

Asylum Screening (Croydon)

Andrew Pelling: The second petition reads as follows:
	The Petition of the people of Croydon,
	Declares that the decision to make Croydon's Asylum Screening Unit the only such in-land unit could result in an additional 3,650 asylum seekers coming to Croydon each year, and that this will take a financial toll on local services.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring in a bill to ensure that the costs of implementing and running this policy are met from central funds.
	[P000807]

Crystal Palace FC

Andrew Pelling: The petition states:
	The Petition of football supporters,
	Declares that The Football League should exercise discretion in its application of its rules that has led to the 10 point deduction from Crystal Palace FC, and notes that unlike other football clubs penalised after seeking administration Crystal Palace FC was placed in administration against its wishes, and notes that Lloyds Banking Group has an important role to play in returning Crystal Palace FC to profitable trading by working on the ownership of Selhurst Park being returned to the club.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage The Football League to consider whether it should remove or reduce the points penalty meted out to Crystal Palace FC, and as a major shareholder in Lloyds Banking Group that it should ask the senior management of Lloyds Banking Group as to what action it is taking to reunite Selhurst Park with Crystal Palace FC so as to aid Crystal Palace FC in returning to profitable trading.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000808]

Bus Routes (Croydon)

Andrew Pelling: The petition states:
	The Petition of the people of Croydon,
	Declares that they would support the introduction of a 24 hours a day service on the 64 bus route.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Transport for London in this proposal of a 24 hours a day 64 bus route.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000809]

Public Sector Employment (Croydon)

Andrew Pelling: The petition states:
	The Petition of the people of Croydon,
	Declares that the Croydon economy depends on public sector employment.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that public sector positions are not transferred away from Croydon.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000810]

Incinerator (Croydon)

Andrew Pelling: The petition states:
	The Petition of the people of Croydon,
	Declares that the construction of an incinerator on Beddington Lane, Sutton, would not be in Croydon's interests.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take steps to investigate alternative sites for the incinerator or alternative means of disposing of waste in an environmentally friendly manner.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000811]

GPs (Croydon)

Andrew Pelling: The petition states:
	The Petition of the people of Croydon,
	Declares that having only three GPs on call from midnight to 8am covering 370,000 residents in Croydon is clearly inadequate and forces Croydon residents into more expensive care at AE thus wasting public money.
	The Petitioners therefore call upon the House of Commons to urge the Government to direct Croydon NHS to provide for more GP overnight coverage.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000812]

Diabetes Services (Croydon)

Andrew Pelling: The petition states:
	The Petition of the people of Croydon,
	Declares that in Croydon there is good work being done to combat diabetes and that Croydon now needs more screening tests for diabetes; more albumin creative ratio checks and HbA1C tests for those already living with diabetes; and Government support for Croydon's services that combat the diabetic arterial diseases that can lead to amputations; and that with the right support amputations could be cut by 30% through better total care and public health education to allow for earlier intervention to stop amputations.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support Croydon's services that combat the diabetic arterial diseases and to encourage health providers to make available more screening tests for diabetes and more albumin creative ratio checks and HbA1C tests for those already living with diabetes.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000813]

Housing (Croydon)

Andrew Pelling: The petition states:
	The Petition of New Addington residents,
	Declares that much needed family homes are being shoe-horned into unsuitable former garage sites that compromise the visual amenity and environment of old and new residents alike, and that the local Council thus pays disrespect to New Addington.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to investigate whether value for money is being achieved from the housing grant paid to Croydon Council and to place improved conditions on quality of design and setting for new Council housing in the London Borough of Croydon.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000814]

Parliamentary Reform

Andrew Pelling: I am very happy to take up the invitation of the petitioners in this last petition.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the people of Croydon,
	Declares that Andrew Pelling has served as an effective Member of Parliament for Croydon Central putting Croydon first and would serve Croydon well again if he were to be persuaded to stand for re-election in the upcoming General Election.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons uses the powers of the new Business Committee to table further debates on Parliamentary reform to allow discussion on the advantages of independence in the House.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000815]

AGGREGATES LEVY SUSTAINABILITY FUND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr. Blizzard.)

John Mann: It gives me great pleasure to introduce this Adjournment debate on the aggregates levy and the use of that levy in local communities affected by aggregates. The levy was initially the idea of the Prime Minister, the then Chancellor, and was first mooted in the July 1997 Budget. It was confirmed in the 2000 Budget and published in the 2001 Budget, to be introduced in April 2002. At the time, it was a levy on aggregates of £1.60 a tonne.
	The aim of the levy was to encourage a move away from aggregates, to maximise the use of alternatives such as recycled construction and demolition waste and china clay waste, and to encourage the more efficient use of aggregates, greater resource efficiency in the construction industry and the development of a range of other alternatives, including the use of waste glass and tyres in aggregate mixes. The levy has raised £334 million in the past financial year and in the Government's view has been a significant factor in reducing sales of virgin aggregates in England by about 18 million tonnes between 2001 and 2005.
	The issue that I wish to concentrate on in this debate is the approximately 10 per cent. of the levy that goes to the aggregates levy sustainability fund. The fund was established through negotiation with the industry at the onset of the scheme and its current budget of £35 million is due to be renewed in 2011-I understand that those discussions are under way. The money available under the ALSF is to be used for four objectives. The first is to minimise the demand for primary aggregates extraction. The second is to promote more environmentally friendly aggregates extraction and transport. The third is to address the environmental impacts of past aggregates extraction. The fourth, which is crucial, is to compensate local communities for the impacts of aggregates extraction. I wish to draw that fourth objective to the attention of the House.
	This money is distributed in a range of ways, one of which is through local authorities. They allocated £3 million of the total for this final fourth objective. In the county of Nottinghamshire £107,000 is allocated, of which £106,735 was spent last year. However, the issue is how the money is spent. Local authorities, including those in Nottinghamshire, will say that the money is being used to leverage in other money. Indeed, in a written answer that I received the relevant Minister said:
	It is for local authorities to decide how to spend money provided via ALSF as a non ring fenced area based grant. These monies are spent according to local priorities.-[ Official Report, 11 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 412W.]
	However, the industry, through the Mineral Products Association, argues, among other things, that
	the creeping migration and diversion of funds away from the original and core purposes of the fund
	should
	be arrested and reversed.
	It also says that significantly more funding should be directed to benefit local communities in Nottinghamshire and elsewhere in the country. I back that concept. It seems to me that the fund from the aggregates levy should be aimed specifically and explicitly at benefiting local communities that are directly and immediately impacted by the quarrying of aggregates. The money should be spent with those communities and not diverted to other worthy projects in areas that have a negligible amount of quarrying-or, indeed, none.
	I have looked into how the money has been spent in Nottinghamshire over the years, including last year. It has been spent on some very worthy projects, including projects that I have personally assisted in raising money for, but those projects should not be getting the aggregates levy money when communities that are directly affected by quarrying get none of it. I shall cite a few examples. My constituency has the largest amount of quarrying in Nottinghamshire and one of the largest amounts of quarrying for aggregates anywhere in the country. Villages such as Scrooby and Sturton le Steeple are getting nothing, or next to nothing, from the fund.
	Sturton le Steeple has a power station-indeed, two power stations, in essence-at West Burton, as well as a huge quarry, and there are vast amounts of lorry movements from both of those enterprises, not least from quarrying. The village recognises that there is and will always be a need for aggregates, and it welcomes the fact that good quarrying companies will do the job well, particularly if they are prepared to negotiate and abide by agreements regarding traffic and the movement of material by barge, rail or road. Of course, villagers want there to be maximum use of barge and rail in moving extractions of that nature. They will live with the quarry, but it is fair to expect for them more than the measly amounts that have been given to Sturton le Steeple and the nothing that has been given to Scrooby.
	However, there is a worse example, which for the nation exemplifies the problem of such moneys being diverted by county councils to worthy causes for good reason, but not a good enough reason. Misson is the place in Nottinghamshire for quarrying. Everyone in Nottinghamshire who looks into this issue knows that has been the case for previous and current quarrying, and it will doubtless be the case for future quarrying. The Minister knows the village, because he has kindly provided assistance to villagers in dealing with the separate issue of the mushroom composting factory that has been blighting their lives for many years. The village would like to thank the Minister for instigating the current health review on that matter.
	The village of Misson has received nothing from the fund, despite having many community projects for which it would like funding. Many villagers would like children's playground facilities to be enhanced and to have new footpaths where footpaths do not exist. Other worthy projects will come forward, but it should be for the local community to decide on priorities. Those people are being denied access to the fund. My plea to the Minister, and through him to his Department and the Government, is to heed the requests of the industry, which are echoed by my communities that are directly affected and are also echoed by me.
	Our request is that the original purpose be explicitly implemented when the fund is renewed-that is, that the money should go to those villages and communities that are directly impacted. It should no longer be possible for county councils or others to divert money, for whatever worthy reason, to other projects rather than to communities that have quarrying.
	It seems to me that the deal that applies to the industry and the Government should also apply to those communities. I request that, in the negotiations, the Minister change the terms and conditions behind the fund to ensure that those affected by quarrying get the benefits from the levy in the way that the Prime Minister originally intended.

Dan Norris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this debate on an area of my Department's work that is not widely known but in which I genuinely think we might take some pride.
	I had the great pleasure only a couple of weeks ago to open a conference adjacent to the Olympic site in Stratford to showcase the work of the aggregates levy sustainability fund. I do not think that anyone who was present on the day could fail to be impressed by the sheer diversity of the projects that have been funded. However, it cannot fund everything, and sometimes there are tough choices to be made by our delivery partners about how to use the funds allocated to them to pursue the broad themes that we have agreed for the fund.
	When the ALSF was introduced in April 2002, its overarching purpose was to complement the objectives of the levy that applies to the extraction of aggregates in this country, and to deliver environmental and social benefits to areas subject to the environmental costs of aggregates extraction. Since its introduction, the fund has been administered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and delivered through a total of 28 delivery partners. Over the eight years since its inception, the fund has helped around 3,000 projects which have shared more than £169 million.
	A full public consultation was undertaken on how best to target funding for the current 2008 to 2011 spending review period. Based on those responses, we decided that the most effective way to achieve the fund's aim
	to reduce the environmental footprint of aggregates production and deliver benefits in areas of extraction
	was to organise work around five themes, and I should like to say something about them now.
	The first theme is the quarries theme. This includes Carbon Trust work with quarrying companies to reduce carbon emissions; Natural England work to enhance landscape and biodiversity around quarries; and English Heritage work to manage archaeology and other historic assets around quarries. It also involves working with the Mineral Industry Research Organisation to improve capacity for managing the environment in the longer term.
	The second theme is the marine theme. This involves increasing capacity for managing marine dredging and has included mapping most of the major extraction areas so that we have a better understanding of the environmental assets that need protecting. The third theme is resource use. This is work that the Waste and Resources Action Programme-often referred to as WRAP-and the Environment Agency do to ensure increased recycling of construction and demolition waste, and the sustainable use of materials to reduce the need for extraction in the first place.
	The fourth theme is transport. This comprises work that the Department for Transport does to train lorry drivers to drive in a more safe and fuel-efficient way, and to increase capacity to transport aggregates by rail and water rather than road. Another element is the work that British Waterways has done to enable transport of aggregates by the waterways around east London.
	Finally, there is the communities theme. This is work done by Action for Communities in Rural England and local authorities to fund projects in communities affected by extraction. Work ranges from improvements to community buildings to access to local services, and from the provision of play facilities to landscape improvements. To give an example from Nottinghamshire, a listed windmill at North Leverton that has been in operation for 200 years was in disrepair and under threat. An ALSF grant provided £16,000 towards work costing £32,000 that was needed to enable the repair and refurbishment of the windmill. The work allowed the mill to keep grinding, and to remain open to the public and for school visits. The fund's delivery partners develop the detailed criteria to determine, in a transparent way, how they select specific projects. In the case of local authorities, a share of the fund is distributed in the form of what is called an area based grant, through the local area agreement, to be spent according to locally set priorities.
	My hon. Friend is supporting a request from Misson parish council for some 2 km of new roadside footpath to be provided between the villages of Misson and Newington. However, through correspondence with Misson, Nottinghamshire county council has explained that the proposal does not fit with the criteria that it applies-criteria agreed with DEFRA-in using the funds that it disburses. The proposal would take a disproportionate amount of the funding available to the council and create a longer-term maintenance bill that has no obvious funder.
	Many key stakeholders have an interest in the ALSF. They range from the aggregates industry itself-which is understandably interested in getting some credit, given the contribution it makes to general taxation via the levy-to the waste management and processing sector, which is involved under the resource use theme by helping to reduce the need for virgin aggregates, and a vast range of non-governmental organisations, including national and local nature conservation bodies, and local archaeological and geological bodies.
	The Campaign for National Parks, Friends of the Peak District, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Wildlife Trusts have all benefited-significantly in the case of the RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts-from ALSF project funding, and were therefore active contributors to the fund's outputs.
	The dedication and engagement of all those bodies, and indeed many others, in working with us on those issues is clearly apparent, and I applaud the work that they have done. The fund contributes in a small but very effective and important way to the objectives of a number of Departments and their agencies.

John Mann: Is that not exactly the problem? The issue is not about Government priorities or local government priorities. Was the levy, or was it not, set up in its community aspect to benefit those communities impacted upon by extraction? The Minister has given examples. North Leverton is a wonderful project. Is there a quarry near North Leverton? Misson was refused. Is there a quarry near Misson?

Dan Norris: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. DEFRA is acutely aware that some stakeholders and communities are concerned about how money from the fund is allocated. That is certainly true, but it did not emerge as a major concern in the 2008 consultation, when we consulted widely on the future design of the scheme.
	Most responses gave strong support for the way the fund currently operates, although I accept that things may have changed and that that may not be correct now. Budgets for the coming financial year have already been committed to local authorities and to ACRE. Future spending plans beyond that are uncertain, but I can say to my hon. Friend that, should the Department be in a position to continue the fund beyond 2010-11, I have asked my officials to consider the option of targeting the communities element so that moneys for local communities reach those most affected by aggregates extraction. I hope he finds some comfort in those words.
	Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his usual hard work on behalf of his constituents. I hope that I have clarified the Government's position for him.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.